MR.JAMES AJAYI & ANOR v. MR.SUNDAY SURU & ORS (2019)

MR.JAMES AJAYI & ANOR v. MR.SUNDAY SURU & ORS

(2019)LCN/13817(CA)

In The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

On Friday, the 25th day of October, 2019

CA/L/715/2016

RATIO

COURTS: DUTY OF A TRIAL COURT AND EFFECT OF FAILURE IN SUCH DUTIES
Now, the duty of a trial Court to consider, appraise, review and evaluate all relevant and admitted evidence, whether oral or depositions and or documentary, placed before it before arriving at its findings and decision is a paramount as well as a sacrosanct one which cannot under any guise be abandoned or jettison by a trial Court. Thus, where a trial Court fails in this duty then it fails in its entire duty of impartial adjudication between the contending parties before it and the appellate Court if so moved is under a bounden duty to intervene to evaluate the evidence as in the record and make relevant findings and reach appropriate decisions as borne out by the evidence in the interest of justice to the parties. See Olufosoye V. Olorunfemi (1989) 1 SC (Pt. 1) 29, where Oputa, JSC., (God bless his soul) had opined inter alia thus:
There is a duty on a trial Court to receive all available evidence on an issue. This is perception of evidence. After that there is another duty to weigh that evidence in the con of the surrounding circumstances of the case. This is evaluation of evidence.
See also Tangale Traditional Council V. Fawu (2001) 17 NWLR (Pt. 742) 330 @ pp. 335 – 336. PER BIOBELE ABRAHAM GEORGEWILL, J.C.A.

WHERE THE PRINCIPAL CLAIM OF A CLAIMANT IS FOR DAMAGES IN TRESPASS AND ORDER OF PERPETUAL INJUNCTION

My lords, in law where the principal claim of a Claimant, such as the Appellants, is for damages for trespass, coupled with a claim for an order of perpetual injunction against a Defendant, such as the Respondents, who claims that the land belongs to him, it immediately puts in issue the title of the Claimant and such a Claimant, such as the Appellants, bears the burden of proving title to such land over which they claim perpetual injunction. PER BIOBELE ABRAHAM GEORGEWILL, J.C.A.

APPEAL: DUTY OF AN APPELLATE COURT WHEN THE APPEAL IS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE

My lords, when in an appeal it is alleged that the judgment appealed against is against the weight of evidence, as in ground six of the notice of appeal, it is simply a call on this Court to review and re-evaluate the evidence in the printed record to determine if the Court below properly evaluated the evidence and made correct findings borne out by the evidence as led by the parties. PER BIOBELE ABRAHAM GEORGEWILL, J.C.A.

WHEN THE APPELLATE COURT WILL INTERFERE IN THE DISCRETION OR DUTY OF THE TRIAL COURT

However, it is the law that it is only where the Court below had not properly carried out its sacred duty of dispassionately evaluating the totality of the evidence led, and had thus failed in this primary duty, that an appellate Court would have the legal justification to intervene and re – evaluate the evidence on the printed record in order to make appropriate findings of facts in line with the dictates of justice to the parties. So, until an appellate Court arrives at such a conclusion the need for re – evaluation of evidence does not arise since an appellate Court has no business re ? evaluating the evidence and interfering with correct findings of a trial Court. See Williams V. Tinubu (2014) All FWLR (Pt. 755) 200. See also Amuneke V. The State (1992) NWLR (Pt. 217)347; Sule Asariyu V. The State (1987) 4 NWLR (Pt. 67) 709; Nkebisi V. State (2010) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1188) 471; Woluchem V. Gudi (1981) 5 SC. 291; Enang V. Adu (1981) 11-12 SC. 25; Abisi & Ors. V. Ekwealor & Anor (1993) 6 NWLR (Pt. 302) 643; Igago V. The State (1999) 12 SCNJ 140 @ p. 160; Amala V. State (2004) 12 NWLR (Pt. 888)520. PER BIOBELE ABRAHAM GEORGEWILL, J.C.A.

APPEAL: THE MAIN CONCERN OF AN APPELLATE COURT
This is so because in law an appellate Court is not so much concerned with the correctness or wrongness of the reasons adduced by a trial Court for its decisions or conclusions but rather more concerned with whether the decision reached or conclusion arrived at was correct or wrong; that is the law. See Alhaji Ndayako & Ors. V. Alhaji Dantoro & Ors. (2004) 13 NWLR (Pt. 889) 187 @ p. 198. See also Abaye V. Ofili (1986) 1 NWLR (Pt. 15) 134; Ukejianya V. Uchendu 18 WACA 46. PER BIOBELE ABRAHAM GEORGEWILL, J.C.A.

THE APPELLATE COURT SHOULD RESPECT THE VIEWS OF THE TRIAL COURT
It is also the law that an appellate Court which had not seen the witnesses testify and observed their demeanor in the witness stand should respect the views of the trial Court and not to readily substitute its own views for that of the trial Court except where it is shown that the conclusion or finding reached by the trial Court was perverse and for this an appellate Court will readily intervene to re-evaluate the evidence in the printed record if it is shown that the conclusions reached or findings made by the trial Court on the proved evidence before it do not flow from such proved facts or runs contrary to such proved facts and thus perverse. In such a case, the appellate Court is in good a position as the trial Court to intervene to re-evaluate the evidence in the printed record to draw necessary inference and make proper findings on the proved and admitted facts in the record as the justice of the case requires but which the trial Court had failed to do. SeeObajimi V. Adeobi (2008) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1075) 1 @ P. 19. See also Owor V. Christopher (2010) All FWLR (Pt. 511) 962 @ 992; Sogbamu V. Odunaiya (2013) All FWLR (pt. 700) 1249 @ P. 1302; Mini Lodge V. Ngei (2010) All FWLR (Pt. 506) 1806 @ Pp. 1820 -1821; Sa?eed V. Yakowa (2013) All FWLR (Pt. 692) 1650 @ P. 1681. PER BIOBELE ABRAHAM GEORGEWILL, J.C.A.

LAND LAW: THE EFFECT OF ROOT OF TITLE FAILING

Once, the root of title relied upon fails, then all acts of possession and or ownership purportedly exercised consequent upon the failed root of title to land cannot sustain a claim of declaration of title to land and would rather become clear acts of trespass on the land in dispute at the suit of the person with a better title. See Regd Trustee of Diocese of Aba V. Helen Nkume (2002) 1 NWLR (Pt. 749) 726. See also Shuakani V. Tippi (2014) LPELR ? 24201 (CA) per Georgewill JCA @ pp. 58 – 60. PER BIOBELE ABRAHAM GEORGEWILL, J.C.A.

WHETHER A CLAIMANT IS REQUIRED TO PROVE ALL 5 METHODS OF PROVING TITLE TO LAND
It is also the law, and there is no dispute about it, that although a Claimant to title to land, as well as a Counter Claimant, is not required to prove more than one of the five ways of proof of title to land, where he fails to satisfy the Court on any one or more of the five ways he relies on then his claim to title to land must fail. See Idundun V. Okumagba (1976) 9 – 10 SC 27. See also Chief Elemoro & Anor Vs. Chief Abiodun (2014) LPELR 23195; Piaro V. Tenalo (1976) 12 SC 31 @ p. 37; Dabo Vs. Abdullahi (2005) LPELR – 905 (SC). PER BIOBELE ABRAHAM GEORGEWILL, J.C.A.

PARTIES MUST ENSURE THAT THEIR FACTS AND EVIDENCE ARE CONSISTENT

The law is well settled that notwithstanding the difficulty of discerning absolute truth by the mechanism of litigation and judicial discernment hinged upon evidence before the Court and irrespective of the imperfections of men, the litigation process is aimed at finding out the truth according to law and therefore, a party worthy of favourable consideration of the Court must endeavour to be consistent in both the facts he pleads and the evidence he leads in proof of those facts. A party will not therefore, be allowed to present at the trial evidence which are inconsistent with the case he has pleaded. See Ajide V. Kelani (1985) 3 NWLR (Pt. 12) 248; Ezemba V. Ibeneme (2009) 14 NWLR (Pt. 789) 623. PER BIOBELE ABRAHAM GEORGEWILL, J.C.A.

FRAUD : PARTICULARS OF FRAUD MUST BE DULY PLEADED
Thus, an allegation of fraud contained in a pleading of a party, no matter how seemingly grave, unless its particulars are duly pleaded and credible evidence led in support to prove it beyond reasonable doubt as required by law, it is really of no moment and remains unproved and therefore, goes to no issue. See Olufunmise v Falana (1990) 3 NWLR (Pt. 136) 1; See also Agbi V. Ogbeh (2006) 1 NWLR (Pt. 990) 65; Nwobodo V. Onoh (1984) 1 SCNLR 1; Nwanguma V Ikyaande (1992) 8 NWLR (Pt. 258) 192; Ndoma Egba V. ACB Plc. (2005) 14 NWLR (Pt. 944) 79; Olalomi Industries Ltd. V. N.I.D.B (2009) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1167) 266; Omoboriowo V. Ajasin (1984) 1 SCNLR 108. PER BIOBELE ABRAHAM GEORGEWILL, J.C.A.

JUSTICES

BIOBELE ABRAHAM GEORGEWILL Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

UGOCHUKWU ANTHONY OGAKWU Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

JAMILU YAMMAMA TUKUR Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

Between

1. MR. JAMES AJAYI – APPELLANTS 2. MR. AFOLABI ZACHARIAH AJAYI
(For themselves and on behalf of Ajayi Otapo Ogbolo Family) Appellant(s)

AND

1. MR. SUNDAY SURU
2. MOJEED AKILAPA
3. MURISIKU KEKE
4. AKINLADE OGUNTAN Respondent(s)

BIOBELE ABRAHAM GEORGEWILL, J.C.A.(Delivering the Leading Judgment): This is an Appeal against the judgment of the High Court of Lagos State, Coram: B. A. Oke – Lawal J., in Suit No. ID/439/2008: James Ajayi & Anor V. Sunday Suru & Ors delivered on 19/2/2016, wherein the claims of the Appellants as Claimants against the Respondents as Defendants were dismissed, while the counter claim of the Respondents against the Appellants were granted.

The Appellants were peeved with the said judgment and had appealed against it to this Court vide their Notice of Appeal filed on 17/3/2016 on six grounds of appeal at pages 242 – 246 of the Record of Appeal. The Record of Appeal was duly transmitted to this Court on 17/6/2016. The Appellants? brief was filed on 10/5/2018 but deemed properly filed on 11/4/2019. The Respondents? brief was filed on 9/10/2018 but deemed properly filed on 11/4/2019.

?At the hearing of this appeal on 3/10/2019, Lawrence Adepoju Esq., learned counsel for the Appellants adopted the Appellants? brief as their arguments and urged the Court to allow the appeal and set aside the judgment of the

Court and enter judgment on the claims of the Appellants while striking out and or dismissing the counter claim of the Respondents. On his part, B. A. Olubando Esq., learned counsel for the Respondents adopted the Respondents? brief as their arguments and urged the Court to dismiss the appeal and affirm the judgment of the Court below.

By a Writ of Summons filed on 25/3/2008, the Appellants as Claimants before the Court below claimed against the Respondents as Defendants, the following reliefs, namely:
1. An Order of perpetual injunction restraining the Defendants whether by themselves or through their Agents, privies and anybody whosoever from entering upon or from committing any acts of trespass over the claimants? family land known as and situated at Ajayi Otapo Ogbolo family farmland at Oke- Igbonran, Ilado, near Age-Mowo in Olorunda local Government Area which land is covered by survey plans No. LAT/4092A/LA/83 and LAT/4092B/LA/83 dated 11/9/83 and prepared by L. Ademola Ashipa a licensed surveyor.
2. The sum of N500,000.00 against the Defendant as General Damages for their acts of trespass over the Claimants? family

land.
See pages 1 – 23 of the Record of Appeal.

In response, by their Amended Statement of Defence/Counter Claim filed on 22/2/2010, but deemed properly filed on 27/5/2010, the Respondents as Defendants counter claimed against the Appellants for the following reliefs, namely:
(a) Declaration of title in favour of the 1st – 4th Defendants Counter Claimants on behalf of Keke family of Oke – Igbonran via Badagry in respect of 13.518 Hectares of (33.402) Acres of Land at Oke Igbonran Ilado described in the Defendants’ Counter Claimants Plan No.OGEK 195D/182 dated 28th day of June 1982 drawn by Akin Ogunbiyi Licensed Surveyor.
(b) An Order of the Court restraining the Claimants who are the defendants in counterclaim or their agents, privies, or servants from continuing on their act of Trespass on the (33.402) Acres of Land at Oke Igbonran Ilado Via Badagry, Lagos State.
(c) N500,000.00 being General Damages
See pages 26 – 54 of the Record of Appeal.

The parties filed and exchanged pleadings and the matter proceeded to trial. At the trial, the Appellants as Claimants in proof of their claims called three witnesses, who

testified as CW1, Chief Oladele Ewumi Fagbemi, CW2, Afolabi Zachariah Ajayi, and CW3, Mr. James Olarewaju Ajayi and tendered three documents admitted in evidence as Exhibits A1, A2 and B. The Respondents as Defendants/Counter Claimants in proof of their counter claim and defence called five witnesses, who testified as DW1, Akinlade Oguntan, DW2, Mojeed Akilapa, DW3, Murisiku Akilapa, DW4, Sunday Suru, and DW5, Mr. Tanimowo Avoseh and tendered three documents admitted in evidence as Exhibits C, D and E. At the conclusion of trial and addresses by counsel, the Court below delivered its judgment on 19/2/2016, dismissing the claims of the Appellants as Claimants, while granting the claims of the Respondents as Defendants/Counter Claimants, hence this appeal by the Appellants. See pages 1 – 23, 30 – 65, 79 – 86, 112 – 118, 120 – 129, 131 – 140, 142 – 145, 147 ? 148 and 226 – 241, of the Record of Appeal.

BRIEF STATEMENT OF FACTS
The gist of the case of the Appellants, as Claimants before the Court below, as can be gleaned from their pleadings and evidence, oral and documentary led at the trial was that the Appellants, the Ajayi Otapo Ogbolo family

of Ipara village via Ilogbo in Lagos State are the owner of the land in dispute situate at Oke Igbonran, Ilado near Age-Mowo under Yoruba native law and custom and that their ancestor Otapo Ogbolo was the first person to settle on the land in dispute from time immemorial and cultivated same without any hindrance or challenge from any person until his death. Upon his death, his only son Ajayi inherited the land under Yoruba native law and customs and continued in quiet possession while cultivating the same until his death intestate. Upon his death, his own son Zechariah Ajayi, the father of the Appellants, inherited the land under Yoruba native law and custom and was in quiet possession and cultivated it until his death. Upon his death, the Appellants inherited this land under Yoruba native law and custom, and continued farming thereon and renting out some portions to interested people for cultivation.

Sometimes in 1983, the Appellants family surveyed the land in dispute measuring 12 hectares without any hindrance. The land starts from Igboran River and only shares boundary with the farmland of Oladele Ewumi lagbemi family land and Avoseh family land but

the Respondents? family does not have any land at or near Igbonran River as their land only begins to share boundary with the Appellant from the point where Oladele Ewumi Fagbemi family land terminates. In 1993, after the death of the Appellants? father, one Mosebolatan from the Respondents? family of Keke accused the 1st Appellant of trespassing on their family land. The matter was reported to and heard by an 11 man Committee set up by the Baale and after the investigation the Committee found out that the Appellants did not encroach on Respondents? family land. However, in 1999 some members of the Respondents? family forcefully caused the land to be surveyed despite all protestation by Appellants, who later reported the matter to Oba Akran of Badagry but regrettably, the matter was neither heard nor determined by the Baale to whom the Oba referred the matter and in 2007 the Respondents forcefully trespassed onto the Appellants? land by cutting coconut trees and thereafter began to bring people to the land so that they might sell some portions to them, hence the Appellants instituted the action before the Court below on

25/3/2008.

On the other hand, the gist of the case of the Respondents, as Defendants/Counter Claimants as can be gleaned from their pleadings and evidence, oral and documentary led at the trial was that the Respondents are descendants of one Kuye, an hunter and farmer, who migrated from lle Ife to Iworo and later settled at Oke Igbonran Ilado in present day Badagry Local Government, and he begat two sons, Kosoko and Keke, who inherited the land in dispute from his father under Yoruba native law and custom. Keke begat Ajimosun, who in turn begat Oguntan, Fadeyi, Oke Keke, Oke Ajenje and Esubiyi. Pa Oguntan Keke begat Akinlade Oguntan, the 4th Respondent, and the mother of Mojeed Akilapa, the 2nd Respondent and Mijirisiku, the 3rd Respondent, Pa Fadeyi Keke begat Suru Keke who begat Sunday Suru, the 1st Respondent, and Pa Oke Ajenje Keke begat Mosebolatan Keke.

?Sometime in early 1993 the 1st Appellant trespassed into the Respondents? family land and sold some plots of land, which prompted Mosebolatan Keke to report the trespass to the Ilado Community Committee. On 29/4/1993 a 11 man was set up, which looked into the matter and found the

Appellants? family liable for trespass but the Appellants refused to obey the said judgment and continued to sell the Respondents? family land to unsuspecting third parties. Subsequently, in 1999 the Appellants lodged a complaint at the Royal Council of Oba Akran of Badagry, where the matter was once again investigated and on 8/9/1999 the judgment of the Ilado Community Committee was upheld but rather than comply with the result of the two customary arbitration voluntarily submitted to by the parties, the Appellants instituted an action against the Respondent over the same land before the Court below.

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION
In the Appellants? brief, four issues were distilled as arising for determination from the six grounds of appeal, namely:
1. Whether or not the Statement of Defence, Counter-Claims, and the Written Statements on Oath of Defendants? Witnesses in this suit are competent? (Distilled from grounds one and two)
2. Whether or not the contents of Exhibits D & E are a true account or evidence of the facts and resolutions that were reached by the 11 man Committee of Elders of Ilado Town in 1993 and the

Oba Akran of Badagry in 1999 respectively between the parties and in respect of the disputed land? (Distilled from ground four)
3. Whether or not the Respondents? Counter-Claim was righty granted by the Court below? (Distilled from ground five)
4. Whether or not the Appellants? Claim was rightly dismissed by the Court below? (Distilled from grounds three and six)

In the Respondents? brief, the four issues as distilled in the Appellants? brief were adopted as the four issues arising for determination in this appeal.

I have taken time to review the pleadings and evaluate the evidence of the parties and considered the submissions of counsel for the parties in their respective briefs in the light of the findings in the judgment of the Court below and it does appear to me that the four issues on which the parties are ad idem can be harmonized into two issues, with issue one standing on its own, while issues two, three and four can conveniently be taken together as to who as between the Appellants and the Respondents proved their title to the land in dispute and ought to have judgment entered in their favor by the Court

below.

ISSUE ONE
Whether or not the Statement of Defence, Counter-Claims, and the Written Statements on Oath of Defendants? Witnesses in this suit are competent?

APPELLANTS? COUNSEL SUBMISSIONS
On issue one, learned counsel for the Appellant had submitted that the written statement of witnesses who speak only Yoruba were recorded in English language contrary to the provisions of the Rules of the Court below and thus rendering the statement of defence incompetent and liable to be struck out for being an abuse of Court?s process and contended that a statement of defence not accompanied with a valid written statement of witnesses is incompetent and null and void and urged the Court to so hold and to strike out the Respondents? statement of defence for being incompetent. Counsel referred to Order 1(2)(2) and Order 15 (5) (1) & (2) and Order 17(1) of the High Court of Lagos State (Civil Procedure) Rules 2012 and relied on Nigeria LNG Ltd V. ADIC Ltd (1995) 8 NWLR (Pt. 416) 677; CBN V. Ahmed (2001) FWLR (Pt. 56) 670; Ekpuk V. Okon (2002) 5 NWLR (Pt. 760) 445; Akintunde V. Ojo (2003) 4 NWLR (Pt. 754) 248;

Aro V. Lagos Island L.G.C (2002) 4 NWLR (Pt. 7757) 385.

RESPONDENTS? COUNSEL SUBMISSIONS
On issue one, learned counsel for the Respondents had submitted that the Respondents were illiterates who were represented by Counsel who filed all their processes as required by the prevailing Rules of the Court below in 2004 and contended that the object of the said Rules of the Court below was the achievement of a just efficient and speedy dispensation of Justice and urged the Court to hold that the Respondents having relied on their counsel should not be punished for the mistake of their Counsel, more so when there was substantial compliance with the said Rules, in order to eschew reliance on undue technicality. Counsel relied on Green Palms Nig. Ltd V. Casagrande Nig. Ltd (2014) LPELR – 24406 (CA); Society General Bank (Nig.) V. Inter Global Services Ltd & Anor (2010) LPELR – 9032 (CA); Adelusola V. Akinde (2004) 12 NWLR (Pt. 887) 295; Fagunwa V. Adibi (2004) 7 NWLR (Pt. 903) 544.

?It was also submitted that noncompliance with the Orders of the Rules of the Court below relied upon by the Appellants is a mere irregularity and not a condition precedent to

competence that amounts to denial of justice and therefore, does not render the Statement of Defence a nullity and contended that the Appellants having acquiesced with the irregularity by participating at trial before the Court below without raising any such objection except at the address stage had waived their rights to complain and urged the Court to so hold and to discountenance the Appellants? objection and resolve issue one in favor of the Respondents and dismiss the appeal for lacking in merit. Counsel relied on State Independent Electoral Commission Ekiti State V. National Conscience Party (2018) LPELR-4980 (CA); Okoye V. Nigeria Construction Co. Ltd (1991) 6 NWLR (Pt. 199) 501; Addax Petroleum Dev. Co. Ltd. v. Nze Amakonze Ohaegbulem & Ors (2009) LPELR – 3594 (CA); Ayanwale V. Atanda (1988) 1 SCNJ; Ogbonna V. A.G. Imo State (1992) 1 NWLR (Pt. 202) 647; Adene V. Dantunbu (1994) 2 NWLR (Pt. 328) 509; Alade V. Olukade (1976) 2 SC 183; R V. Hammond (1941) 3 All ER 318; R. V. Patel (1951) 2 All ER 29.

It was further submitted that the allegation of failure to file the Yoruba Written Statements of witnesses long with the Statement of Defence

and the subsequent filing of same out of time cannot by any stretch of imagination be equated with abuse of Court process or improper use of the judicial process in litigation and urged the Court to hold that the decisions in CBN V. Ahmed (2001) FWLR (Pt. 56) 670; Ekpuk V. Okon (2002) 5 NWLR (Pt. 760) and Akintunde V. Ojo (2003) 4 NWLR (Pt. 754) 248 relied upon by the Appellants are distinguishable from the instant case and therefore, inapplicable.

RESOLUTION OF ISSUE ONE
My lords, the complaint of the Appellants here is not that the Statement of Defence and Counter claim was not accompanied at all with any written statements on oath of witnesses intended to be called by the Respondents at the trial but that the written statements were not in Yoruba language, that the witnesses understand, but in English language, which I pause to observe is indeed the language of the Court below, and therefore, the Statement of Defence was incompetent, null and void and amounted to an abuse of Court process and therefore, incapable of supporting the case of the Respondents, Really?
I have taken a calm look at the provisions of Order 1(2)(2) and

Order 15 (5)(1) & (2) and Order 17(1) of the High Court of Lagos State (Civil Procedure) Rules 2012 and considered same along with the Statement of Defence and Counter at pages 26 – 34 of the printed record, and it does appear to me that at worst this would amount to a mere irregularity and nothing more. In my finding therefore, these are the sorts of omissions or mischief envisaged and sought to be cured by the provision of Order 5 Rule 1(1) of the Rules of the Court below, providing as follows:
?Where in beginning or purporting to begin any action there has, by reason of anything done or left undone, been a failure to comply with Order 3, Rule 2 or Order 3, Rule 8, the failure shall not nullify the action.?
?Honestly, looking at and considering the conduct of the Appellants from the filing of the statement of defence through the trial without raising any such objection until at the address stage, it appears to me, and as aptly contended by the Respondents that the Appellants being fully aware of the alleged irregularity but had proceeded with the hearing to conclusion had acquiesced to the irregularity and therefore, in law had waived

their rights to complain against that which they had condoned and which does not in any way amount to a denial of justice to them. The Appellants having acquiesced all through the trial should let it be and let the sleeping dogs lies: See Ariori & Ors V. Elemo & Ors. (1983) NSCC 1 @ p. 8; Nigeria Universal Bank Limited& Ors V. Samba Petroleum Company Limited (2006) LPELR – 5974(CA).
?Having therefore, considered the totality of the submissions on issue one, I am unable to see how the complaints of the Appellants, though not of any substance, even if it was made out, would have affected the competence of the Respondents? statement of defence accompanied with written statements of witnesses at the time it was filed, though written in the English language. More, curious, is the contention that, such a mere irregularity already condoned and acquiesced to by the Appellants, amounted to abuse of Court process and null and thus void. I find this contention very strange and a little trifling. Indeed, it is technicality taken too far. Nowadays, the Courts do not concern themselves with or bother so much about trifles but rather conserve their

energy to be expended on matters of substance in the issues in contention between the parties before them. Long gone, I must reiterate here, are the heydays of technicality riding roughshod over substantial justice! The Courts have since charted a new path aimed at consolidating substantial justice between the parties in matters before them and would sparingly accord technicality any pride of place except in very well deserving cases where the alleged incompetence is fundamental and goes to the root of the jurisdiction of the Court itself to hear and determine such a matter on the merit. The challenge to the competence of the Respondents? statement of defense by the Appellants resonates more with undue technicality than with any substance and sincerity. The law now lays emphasis on the overriding need to render substantial justice over and above technical justice by the Courts. In Yusuf V. Adegoke (2007) LPELR – 3534 (SC) the Supreme Court had succinctly stated inter alia thus:
?A technicality in a matter could arise if a party is relying on abstract or inordinate legalism to becloud or drown the merits of a case. A technicality arises if a

party quickly takes an immediate opportunity, however infinitesimal it may be, to work against the merits of the opponent?s case. In other words, he holds and relies tenaciously unto the rules of Court with little or no regard to the justice of the matter. As far as he is concerned the rules must be followed to the last sentences, the last words and the letters without much ado and with little or no regard to the injustice that will be caused the opponent. (Underlining for emphasis, ours)
See also Dangote General ile Products Ltd & Ors V. Hascon Associates Nig. Ltd. & Anor. (2013) LPELR – 20665 (SC); Duke V. Akpabuyo L.G. (2005) 19 NWLR (Pt. 959) 130 @ pp. 142-1 43; U.TC.(Nig.) Ltd V. Pamotei (1989) 2 NWLR (Pt.103) 244.
At any rate, the Courts are the masters of the Rules of Court, which mere handmaids of justice and not the other way round. Thus, I make bold to say that being master where it becomes apparent to the Court that slavish obedience to the Rules of Court is diametrically opposed to the interest of justice in a cause or matter before it, the Court, being a Court of law and justice, and enjoined to lean towards

the doing of justice and jettison technicality in order to avoid falling into the temptation of worshiping the Rules of Court slavishly even to the detriment of justice, which is the hallmark of a Court of law! I refuse, even though so tempted, to fall to this temptation in this appeal and rather cast my lot with rendering substantial justice to the parties in this appeal.
In the circumstances therefore, I hereby resolve issue one against the Appellants in favor of the Respondents and hold firmly that the Respondents? statement of defence and counter claim is competent. The law is that where obedience to Rules of Court is diametrically opposed to the interest of justice, as in the instant appeal, a Court of law is enjoined to lean towards the latter in order to avoid the resultant injustice to the parties by a slavish adherence to Rules of Court. See Duke v. Akpabuyo L.G. (2005) 19 NWLR (Pt 959) 130 @ pp. 142-143, where Pats-Acholonu JSC., (God bless his soul) had succinctly stated inter alia thus:
?It is important to understand the nature of rules of the Court. Our Courts have held that rules of the Court are meant to be obeyed. They

provide supports in the administration of justice, but it must be understood that being rules or regulations to assist the Court in its effort to determine issues or controversies before the Court, care must be exercised in not elevating them to the status of a statute as they are subsidiary instruments. They are to be used by the Court to discover justice and not to choke, throttle or asphyxiate justice. They are not sine qua non in the just determination of a case and therefore not immutable.?
See also U.TC. (Nig) Ltd V. Pamotei (1989) 2 NWLR (Pt.103) 244; Dangote General ile Products Ltd & Ors V. Hascon Associates Nig. Ltd. & Anor (2013) LPELR – 20665 (SC).

ISSUES TWO, THREE AND FOUR (TAKEN TOGETHER)
Whether or not the contents of Exhibits D & E are a true account or evidence of the facts and resolutions that were reached by the 11 man Committee of Elders of Ilado Town in 1993 and the Oba Akran of Badagry in 1999 respectively between the parties and in respect of the disputed land, AND Whether or not the Respondents? Counter-Claim was rightly granted by the Court below, AND Whether or not the Appellants? Claim

was rightly dismissed by the Court below?

APPELLANTS? COUNSEL SUBMISSIONS
On issue two, learned counsel for the Appellants had submitted that Exhibits D & E are worthless documents as they are self-serving and were fabricated by the Respondents for the purpose of this action and contended that the unchallenged evidence of CW1, a member of the 11 man Committee clearly debunked the correctness of these Exhibits D and E contrary to the perverse finding of the Court below and urged the Court to hold that Exhibits D & E are not a true account of what transpired over the land between the parties in 1993 and 1999 and set aside the perverse findings of the Court below to the contrary.

?It was also submitted that neither the contents of Exhibit D nor the evidence of DW5 was strong and reliable enough to discredit the evidence of CW1, who both parties admitted was a member of the 11 man Committee which resolved the dispute and contended that Exhibit E was equally concocted by the Respondents in order to confer an undue advantage on themselves and urged the Court to discountenance Exhibits D and E, which does not qualify as customary

arbitration awards or judgments and set aside all the perverse findings of the Court below based upon them. Counsel relied on Egesimba V. Onuzuruike (2002) FWLR (Pt. 128) 1386; Nwosu V. Nwosu (1996) 2 NWLR (Pt. 428) 64.

On issue three, learned counsel for the Appellants had submitted that the evidence led by the Respondents, which was accepted by the Court below as credible and cogent to award title to the land in dispute to them, was insufficient both as to quality, consistency and credibility and ought not to have been accepted by the Court below as sufficient and credible to ground title in the Respondents and urged the Court to so hold and to set aside the perverse findings of the Court below and allow the appeal and dismiss the Respondents? counter claim to the land in dispute for lacking in merit. Counsel relied on Aseimo V. Abraham (2001) FWLR (Pt. 63) 72; Bamikole V. Oladele (2011) ALL FWLR (Pt. 562) 1699; Eyo V. Onuoha (2011) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1257) 16; Ukpo V. Adede (2002) 3 NWLR (Pt. 755) 671; A. G. Anambra V. A.G. Federation (2005) All FWLR (Pt. 268) 1557; Jolayemi V. Olaoye (2004) All FWLR (Pt. 217) 584: Unipetrol (Nig) Plc. V. Adirye(W/A) Ltd. ?

(2004) All FWLR (Pt. 231)1238; Dantata v Dantata (2003) 4 NWLR (Pt. 756) 152.

On issue four, learned counsel for the Appellants had submitted that the finding by the Court below that the witnesses for the Appellants were not truthful and that their evidence was unreliable and conflicting was perverse and contended that most of the crucial averments of the Appellants were not specifically traversed, and were thus deemed admitted, coupled with the consistent, credible and unchallenged evidence of the Appellant which the Court below ought to have acted upon to find in favor of the Appellants to the title to the land in dispute and urged the Court to so hold and to set aside the perverse findings of the Court below and make appropriate findings on the unchallenged evidence of the Appellants and allow the appeal and grant the claims of the Appellants against the Respondents?. Counsel relied on I.F.A Intn?l Ltd. V. Liberty Merchant Bank Plc. (2005) All FWLR (Pt. 265) 1141; R.C.C (Nig.) Ltd. V. R.P.C. Ltd. (2005) (Pt. 265) 1020; Ikare Community Bank V. Ademuwagun (Pt. 265) 1089; ADIKE V. OBIARERI (2002) 4 NWLR (Pt. 758) 537;

Unibiz (Nig.) Ltd. V. Commercial Bank Ltd. (2005) ALL FWLR (Pt. 267) 1378; NWOSU V Imo State Environmental Sanitation Authority (1990) 2 NWLR (Pt. 135) 658.

It was also submitted that the Appellants did not make any claim to a declaration for title to the land as all that they claimed were an order of perpetual injunction and general damages for acts of trespass by the Respondents and contended that in law all that the Appellants need to establish to be entitled to an order of perpetual injunction is to prove their exclusive possession of the land and urged the Court to hold that since the slightest possession in a Claimant enables him to maintain an action for trespass, the Appellants sufficiently made out their claims by credible and unchallenged evidence and ought to have been granted their reliefs by the Court below and to set aside the dismissal of their claim and enter judgment in their favor on all their claims against the Respondents. Counsel relied on Bamgboye V. Olusoga (1996) NWLR (Pt. 755) 720; Majekodunmi V. Abina (2002) 3 NWLR 1; Olaleye V. Trustees of ECWA (2011) All FWLR (Pt. 565) 297; Anyaegbunam V. A. G. Anambra State (1995) 9 NWLR (Pt. 417) 97;

Yakubu V M.N.T.A.S. (2005) All FWLR (Pt. 267) 1388; Ibrahim V. Mohammed (1996) 3 NWLR (Pt. 437) 453; Anyakora V Obiakor (2005) All FWLR (Pt. 268) 1662.

RESPONDENTS? COUNSEL SUBMISSIONS
On issue two, learned counsel for the Respondents had submitted that by the averments and consistent, credible and cogent evidence, and rightly believed by the Court below, the Respondents proved how the land in dispute devolved unto them and how the Appellants trespassed unto a portion of their land in 1993 and contended that there was also credible evidence that upon the complaint of the Respondents? family against the Appellants? family the matter was investigated and resolved by an 11 man Committee of Ilado Community in favor of the Respondents against the Appellants as rightly found by the Court below and urged the Court to hold that the contents of Exhibits D and E were not in any way rebutted by the Appellants and was thus rightly belived and acted upon by the Court below in favor of the Respondents. Counsel relied on Nigerian Maritime Services Ltd V. Afolabi (1978) 2 SC 79; Haruna V. University of Agriculture Markurdi (2004) LPELR – 5899

(CA).

It was also submitted that both parties by their pleadings and evidence led are ad idem that the matter was investigated and resolved by the Elders of Ilado Community in 1993, as in Exhibit D and contended that the said resolution was subsequently in 1999 upheld by the Oba Akran of Badagry in Council in favor of the Respondents, as in Exhibit E, which are hangers on which to assess the veracity of the oral evidence of the parties, as was done by the Court below and urged the Court to resolve issue two against the Appellants in favor of the Respondents. Counsel relied on Osa Nekpenekpen V. Iwazor Egbemttoukaye (2014) LPELR – 22335 (CA); A.G. Bendel State V. UBA Ltd (1986) 4 NWLR (Pt. 37)1; Agbareh V. Mimra (2008) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1071) 378; Living Faith Church Otukpo V. Adole (2005) All FWLR (Pt. 276) 784; Da Rocha V. Hussain (1958) SCNLR 200; SCOA (Nig.) Ltd V. Bourdex Ltd (1990) 3 NWLR (Pt. 138) 380; Adegbayi V. Ishola (2003) 11 NWLR(Pt. 831) 343.

?It was further submitted that the contradictions in the evidence of the Appellants? witnesses were material and thereby destroyed their credibility, unlike the consistent, credible and cogent evidence

of the Respondents? witnesses, which were rightly believed and acted upon by the Court below in finding for the Respondents as owners of the land in dispute and urged the Court to affirm the said findings and to dismiss the appeal for lacking in merit. Counsel relied on George Ikoli & Anor V. Terungwa Agber (2014) LPELR – 22563 (CA); Ogun V. Akinyelu (2004) 18 NWLR (Pt. 9115) 312; Kanu C. Offonry V. Helen Pretty Eniezi & Anor (2012) LPELR – 153561 (CA); Obidike V. The State (2002) FWLR (Pt. 87) 784; Chief L.K. Ajibare & Anor V. James Akomolafe & Anor (2011) LPELR – 3948 (CA); Yadis Nig. Ltd V. G.N.I.C. Ltd (2007) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1055) 584.

?On issue three, learned counsel for the Respondents had submitted that on the pleadings and consistent and cogent evidence led by the Respondents in proof of their title to the land in dispute, the Court below was right, upon considering and evaluating the evidence as led by both parties, to have believed the same and granted the title to the land in dispute to the Respondents against the Appellants, who failed to lead any consistent and cogent evidence of their alleged but false claim to ownership of

the land in dispute and urged the Court to hold that it is not the business of an appellate Court to interfere with and set aside correct findings of a trial Court and to dismiss the appeal and affirm the judgment of the Court below. Counsel relied on Odofin & Ors V. Mogaji & Ors (1978)4 SC (Reprint) 53 & 56,Anslem Chiejina Nwaeseh & Anor V. Godfrey Obieche Nwaeseh (1999) LPELR -8112 (CA); Ukaegbu V. Ugoji (1991)6 NWLR (Pt. 196) 127 @ 155 SC; Ugbodume V. Abiegbe (1991) 8 NWLR (Pt. 209) 261; Arab Construction Ltd & Anor V. Asuquo Sunday Isaac (2002) LPELR – 9787 (CA); Agbi V. Ogbe (2005) 8 NWLR (Pt. 926) 40.

?On issue four, learned counsel for the Respondents had submitted that on the totality of the pleadings and the inconsistent, discredited and contradictory evidence led by the Appellants, the Court below was right to disbelieve the same and held correctly that they failed to prove their claim to title to the land in dispute and dismissed their baseless claim to the title to the land in dispute and contended that the Appellants by their claim for damages for trespass coupled with an order of perpetual injunction had put their title to

the land in dispute in issue and thus had on them the burden to prove both their title and exclusive possession of the land in dispute which burden they failed, as found rightly by the Court below, to discharge and their claims were thus rightly dismissed by the Court below and urged the Court to so hold and to dismiss the appeal for lacking in merit. Counsel relied on Shittu V. Fashawe (2005) 17 NWLR (Pt. 946) 671 @ p. 690; Amakor V. Obiefuna (1974) 3 SC 67; E. A. N. Nwokafor & Ors V. Mrs. Ifeyinwa Nworji Agumadu (2008) LPELR – 4065 (CA); Idesoh V. Ordia (1997) 3 NWLR (Pt. 499) 17.

?RESOLUTION OF ISSUES TWO, THREE AND FOUR
My lords, issues two, three and four frontally call into question the evaluation of evidence, findings and decisions of the Court below as to whether or not proper evaluations were carried out and findings flowing from such evaluation arrived at by the Court below and whether or not the decisions arrived at by the Court below were correct on the face of the state of the issues joined by the parties in the pleadings and the evidence led thereon. While the Appellants had contended that the Court below did not carry out

proper evaluation of the evidence and thereby arrived at wrong findings of facts leading to its perverse decision to dismiss the Appellants? claim and granting the Respondents? counter claim, the Respondents had contended that the Court below did a proper evaluation of the totality of the evidence led in line with the pleadings of the parties and did arrive at proper finding of facts and therefore, reached the correct decisions on the claims and counter claims of the parties in dismissing the Appellants claim while granting the Respondents? counter claim.
?Now, the duty of a trial Court to consider, appraise, review and evaluate all relevant and admitted evidence, whether oral or depositions and or documentary, placed before it before arriving at its findings and decision is a paramount as well as a sacrosanct one which cannot under any guise be abandoned or jettison by a trial Court. Thus, where a trial Court fails in this duty then it fails in its entire duty of impartial adjudication between the contending parties before it and the appellate Court if so moved is under a bounden duty to intervene to evaluate the evidence as in the

record and make relevant findings and reach appropriate decisions as borne out by the evidence in the interest of justice to the parties. See Olufosoye V. Olorunfemi (1989) 1 SC (Pt. 1) 29, where Oputa, JSC., (God bless his soul) had opined inter alia thus:
?There is a duty on a trial Court to receive all available evidence on an issue. This is perception of evidence. After that there is another duty to weigh that evidence in the con of the surrounding circumstances of the case. This is evaluation of evidence?.
See also Tangale Traditional Council V. Fawu (2001) 17 NWLR (Pt. 742) 330 @ pp. 335 – 336.
?Thus, it is now elementary that evaluation of evidence would entail and demand that the evidence proffered by the parties are assessed, appraised and weighed impartially on the imaginary scale of justice by the Court so as to give probative value or quality to it and there must be on the record, and very importantly too, how the Court arrived at its choice of preference of one piece of evidence to the other. It cannot just be merely a product of the whims and caprices of the judge. No! He must show on record his reason for so doing.

See Alake V. State (1992) 9 NWLR (Pt. 265) 260. See also Dantiye & Anor V. Kanya & Ors (2008) LPELR – 40094 (CA); Afemai Microfinance Bank Ltd V. Seacos Nig. Ltd (2014) LPELR – 22583 (CA).

So as between the Appellants and the Respondents who proved their respective claim and counter claim to the title to the land in dispute? Was the Court below right when it held that it was the Respondents that proved and were thus entitled to a grant of title to the land in dispute? Does this finding by the Court below flow from the issues as joined by the parties in their pleadings and the evidence led thereon?

?In the Statement of Claim, the Appellants, as Claimants before the Court below, had averred inter alia as follows:
1. The Claimants are the head and accredited Representatives of 200 Ajayi Otapo Ogbolo family of Ipara Village via Ilogbo in Lagos State.
4. The Land in dispute is owned by the Claimants family under and by virtue of the Yoruba native law and custom and they have had a very long exclusive possession of it.
5. Claimants aver that their Ancestor/forbear one Otapo Ogbolo, a great hunter & Farmer migrated from Ile-Ife

from time immemorial and became the 1st person to settle on the land in dispute and carried on farming activities on this land for a long time until he died very many years ago, crops such as palm trees, coconut trees, Kola nut trees and others were planted on this land by Claimants, Ancestor down to the present generation.
6. Claimants aver that the said Otapo Ogbolo had only one issue/child by the name of Ajayi who was also a great and renowned hunter and farmer who continued to enjoy exclusive possession of the land in dispute by farming activities.
7. Claimants aver that the said Ajayi was their grandfather and the children and grandchildren of the said Ajayi Otapo Ogbolo now constitute what is known as Ajayi Otapo Ogbolo family, the Claimants herein are the head and accredited Representatives of the said family.
8. Claimants aver that the Ajayi Otapo Ogpolo family has had long possession of this land from time immemorial and exercised various acts of ownership over same unchallenged from any quarters including the Defendants herein, such acts of ownership and possession include exclusive farming and planting of cash crops such as Kola

nut, Palm trees, Coconut trees, seasonal crops such as cassava, corn and yam, erection of ponds for palm oil making, renting some portions to different individuals for farming and planting of ugwu vegetables. See pages 3 – 6 of the Record of Appeal.

In the Statement of Defense and Counter Claim, the Respondents, as Defendants/Counter Claimants before the Court below, had averred inter alia as follows:
4. 1st – 4th Defendants herein shall present their geneology to the Court as follows:
a. The original owner of the said 33.402 Acres of inclusive of the land in dispute is the Great Grandfather of the 1st- 4th Defendants herein who begat: (i) Kosoko and (ii) Keke amongst others. b. Keke who inherited the said large tract of land from his father was a farmer and Hunter and he begat Ajimosun Keke, Oguntan keke, Fadyi keke, Oke keke, Oke Ajenje, and Esubiyi. d. Pa Oguntan Keke begat Akinlade Oguntan (the 4th Defendants). c. Pa Edeyi Keke begat Suru Keke, d. Suru Keke begat Sunday Suru (the 1st Defendant herein). e. Pa Oguntan Keke also begat the Mother of Mojed Akilapa and Murisiku Akilapa (the 2ndand 3rdDefendants). f. Pa Oke Ajenje Keke

(Deceased) begat Mosebolatan Keke one of the beneficiaries of the said Parcel of the land in dispute.
5. The 1st -4th Defendants avers that the large tract of land devolved on them amongst others after the death of their ancestors and progenitors under the Yoruba Native Laws and Customs.
6. The 1st-4th Defendants says that their progenitors who migrated from Ile-Ife to Iworo and settled at Oke-Igbonran Ilado are hunters and farmers who have farmed on the land in dispute from time immemorial without interruption by adverse parties.
7. The 1st- 4th Defendants avers that Pa Keke who was a good farmer extended his territories from Oke-Igbonran to Oke-Ira Ilado and later to Mowo Land having as at then so many laborers working for him.
8. It was also the averments of the 1st – 4th Defendants that the Keke farmland at Oke Igbonran Ilado has a common boundary with Ajayi farmland and on the right side with the AVOSEH family farm land.
11. As a result of the Claimants trespass on the 1st- 4th Defendants farmland: on 20/4/1993, an eleven (11) Man Committee was constituted by the Ilado Community to look into the

allegation made by the Defendants? family and the Claimants herein.
12. The said Committee met severally and listen to the parties in respect of the disputed land and on 6/7/1993, the Committee met on the Land in dispute and planted life trees to demarcate the farmlands of the Claimants? family from that of the Defendants? family.
13. At the end of the Committee?s work and investigation, judgment was hand over on 6/7/1993-endorsed by (i) the Baale Chief K. 0. Saka (ii) Mr. M. A. Akinyele Secretary), (iii) Chief Emmanuel Adeoye (the Balogun and (iv) Mr.
Kayode Tolu (Oga Igbimo). The said judgment of the Ilado Community Council Committee Judgment shall be founded upon at the Trial of this Suit.
15. The 1st -4th Defendants say that as a result of the Claimant?s further trespass on the Keke farmland, the matter went before the Royal Council of King of Akran of Badagry and the council set up a higher Committee to look into the dispute.
16. After several sittings and investigations, the Royal Council of Oba Akran on 8/9/1999 upheld the judgment of the Ilado Committee made on 6/7/93 and told James Ajayi

(the 1st Claimant herein) to accept the judgment in good faith and maintain the boundaries as demarcated by the Community?s Council of Ilado. The Judgment of the Royal Council dated 8/9/99 shall be founded upon at the trial of this suit. See Pages 26 – 29 of the Record of Appeal.

In the Reply to Statement of Defense and Defense to Counter Claim, the Appellants had averred inter alia as follows:
5(v) That the Claimants? family had, had long possession of this land for over a century without any disturbance till date, carrying out extensive farming, leasing and selling portion to interested people, one of such people is one Awe whose privy has built a Storey building on the land unchallenged.
7. That the 2 judgments pleaded and relied upon by the Defendants in their statement of defense are fabricated and concocted after the institution of this suit. See pages 72 – 77 of the Record of Appeal.

?In support and in proof of their averments at the trial before the Court below, the Appellants called three witnesses, and tendered Exhibits A1, A2 and B in evidence, while the Respondents called five witnesses, and tendered Exhibits C, D

and E in evidence. CW1 is the head of Ewumi Fagbemi family and he testified inter alia that the land in dispute shares boundary with his own family by the lgboran River in Ilado Community and measures about 12 hectares. He has known the Appellants? family to be the owner of the said land as they are neighbors. The Appellants? family never parted with possession of the land except in 2007 when the Respondents trespassed on it. In 1993 the Respondents? family lodged a complaint against the 1st Appellant of selling their land. He was one of the 11 man Committee set up by the Baale to look into the matter. Upon a thorough investigation and visit to the land in dispute, the Committee found for the Appellants? family as against the Respondents? family and demarcated the boundaries for both families. There were no minutes taken or judgment given by the Committee. Following this settlement, there was peace until 1999 when the Respondents? family forcefully carried out a survey of the land in dispute despite protest by the Appellants. The 1st Appellant reported to other Baales and the Oba of Badagry, who wanted to investigate the

matter but died before he could do so. He maintained that the Respondents? family does not own the land in dispute. He was thoroughly cross examined and curiously, he seemed to forget or not remember so many of the things he had stated in his written statement on oath adopted as his evidence in chief

?The 2nd Appellant testified as CW2, stating inter alia that the land in dispute is known as Ajayi Otapo Ogbolo family farmland situate at Ilado and shown in their two land survey plans prepared by one L.A. Ashipa. Their great ancestor, one Otapo Ogbolo was the first person to settle on the land from time immemorial and was the owner under Yoruba native law and custom. He cultivated the land for a long time until he died. Otapo Ogbolo had only one child, Ajayi, who begat Zechariah Ajayi. Their family has enjoyed ownership and quite possession of the land for a long time and exercised several acts of ownership thereon by renting portions to some people for planting. However, in 2007 the Respondents and their agents invaded the land and destroyed their crops, sold some of them and began to farm on some portion of the land in dispute. Earlier in 1999 there

was a dispute over the land and efforts were made to settle it but there were no minutes taken or formal judgment delivered. He was thoroughly cross examined and seems to be shaken as to specifics of his evidence in chief. The 1st Appellant testified as CW3, stating inter alia that his family is the owner of the land in dispute from a long time till date, having been first settled upon by their ancestor, one Otapo Ogbolo who cultivated the land and enjoyed quite possession until his death. He begat one son, Ajayi, whose descendants, the Appellants? family, have enjoyed quiet possession of the land in dispute for many years till date and they had never parted with possession until the Respondents trespassed unto the land in 2007. He was also thoroughly cross examined and admitted the intervention of the 11 man Committee in the resolution of the matter in 1993 and his subsequent taking the same matter before the Oba Akran of Badagry but maintained that nothing was resolved by the said Oba.

?On the part of the Respondents, the 4th Respondent testified as DW1, stating inter alia that he is the head of the Respondents? family, who are the rightful

owners of the land in dispute shown in their own survey plan. The land was first settled upon and owned by his great grandfather, one Pa Kuye, who came from Ile – Ife to settle initially at Iworo and later at Oke – Igbonran Ilado several years ago and farmed on the land uninterrupted. He had six children. His own father was one of these six children. He gave the genealogy of the Respondents? family from his great grandfather to the present day. The land in dispute has a common boundary with the Appellants? family farmland at Oke-lgbonran Ilado but the Appellants have been trespassing on the said land as far back as 1993 when they sold some parcel of the said land, resulting into the dispute resolved in their favor by the 11 man Committee set up by the Baale of Ilado to investigate the matter and the father of the 1st Appellant pleaded with the Respondents? family over the trespass by the 1st Appellant with a promise to make amends. However, the Appellants disobeyed the judgment of the llado Committee made on 8/7/93 and rather took the matter again to the palace of the Oba Akran of Badagry and on 8/9/99 the Royal Council of Oba Akran of

Badagry upheld the decision of the 11 man Committee of Ilado Community and told the Appellants never to trespass further into the Respondents? family land. He was thoroughly cross examined but he seemed to stand his ground and was not shaken at all. DW2, is the 2nd Respondent, testified in similar vein with the evidence of DW1 and was also thoroughly cross examined but was not shaken. DW3, is the 3rd Respondent, he also testified in similar vein with the evidence of DW1 and was also thoroughly cross examined but was not shaken. DW4, is the 1st Respondent, he also testified in similar vein with the evidence of DW1 and was also thoroughly cross examined but was not shaken. I note here that the evidence of DW1, DW2, DW3 AND DW4 remained consistent and in line with the averments in the pleadings of the Respondents.

?DW5 was one Tanimowo Avoseh. He testified that in 1993 he was a member of an 11 man Committee set up by the Baale of Ilado to look into the dispute over the land in dispute between the parties in this appeal and that the Committee after a thorough investigation and visit with the parties to the said land found that the Appellants did

trespassed onto the Respondents? family farmlands. They then planted life trees so as to prevent further trespass by the Appellants. However, the matter was later reported to the Palace of the Oba Akran of Badagry in 1999, where the Royal Council after hearing the matter upheld the judgment of the 11 man Committee of Ilado Community and directed the parties to go and abide by the said judgment given on 6/7/03.

?It was on the strength of the above pleadings and evidence, both oral and documentary, that the Court below had in its judgment delivered on 19/2/2016, and appealed against by the Appellants, held inter alia thus:
?The Ilado community council report is Exhibit D and from Exhibit E the committee was also summoned……?During the inspection, the committee noticed that Mr James Ajayi has actually violated the fundamental human right of ownership of the land of the Keke family led by Mr. Mojidi Akilapa Mosebolatan. His father was a living witness. He then told us that he has warned his son, Ajayi to stop claiming what did not belong to him?.Both the Ilado Elders Community Council committee and the Baale

then demarcated the land?.He (Mr. James Ajayi) wanted all the land to be his own. We rejected this plea. We are elders of the village and we knew the history of the ownership more than he knew. His father knew more and he had told us that his own farmland did not extend as far as to where his son was claiming? The council upheld the decision of the committee made on 6/7/93 because the elders in the council committee of Ilado knew the history of the land in dispute having based their decision on the warning given by James lather Pa Ajayi and decided that it was Mr. James Ajayi (the complainant) who trespassed into Mr. Mojidi Mosobolalan farmland?Exhibit D is Ilado community council committee report?The evidence of both the claimant and defendant witnesses confirm the reports of the Ilado community and the Oba Akran despite the denial of the claimants that there was a report. It is clear on their evidence and the content of the reports that the reports show clearly what transpired during the deliberations. I therefore accept the reports as a true and clear statement of what happened during the

deliberations?..The claimant has failed to prove the truth of the averment in his pleadings and has failed to prove his case to the satisfaction of the case as his evidence is unreliable and I reject same. The counter claimant has established his claim by credible evidence and is entitled to judgment. The claimants claim is dismissed and the counterclaim succeeds and is granted as per the reliefs in the counter claim.? See pages 226 – 241 of the Record of Appeal

?My lords, in law where the principal claim of a Claimant, such as the Appellants, is for damages for trespass, coupled with a claim for an order of perpetual injunction against a Defendant, such as the Respondents, who claims that the land belongs to him, it immediately puts in issue the title of the Claimant and such a Claimant, such as the Appellants, bears the burden of proving title to such land over which they claim perpetual injunction. This is clearly contrary to the submission of the Appellants? counsel, which I find inapt, to the effect that since the Appellants merely claimed for damages for trespass and an order of perpetual injunction, they bear no burden of proving

their title to the land in dispute. See Amakor V. Obiefuna (1974) 3 SC 67, where the Supreme Court succinctly stated inter alia thus:
?It is settled principle of law that where a Plaintiff claims damages for trespass and injunction and the Defendant alleges that the land in dispute belonged to him as in the present case title has thereby been made an issue in the case and the burden is on the Plaintiff to show that he was not only in exclusive possession of the land at the time of the trespass but also that his own title to the said land is better than that of the Defendant?
See also E.A.N. Nwokafor & Ors V. Mrs. Ifeyinwa Nworji Agumadu (2008) LPELR – 4065 (CA); Idesoh V. Ordia (1997) 3 NWLR (Pt. 499) 17.
?Now, while the claim of the Appellants are for damages for trespass and an order of perpetual injunction, the counter claim of the Respondents is for declaration of title to the land in dispute, order of injunction and general damages, it is settled law that in such claim and counter claim bordering on declaration of title to land and perpetual injunction, in order to succeed, there must be proof of title to the land in

dispute by credible evidence by one or more of the five methods of proof of title to land, namely: a. Evidence of traditional history of title; b. Production of genuine and valid documents of title; c. Numerous acts of ownership; d. Acts of possession over a long period of time, or, e. Acts of possession of adjacent land long enough to make it probable that the owner of the adjacent land is also the owner of the land in dispute. See Idundun v. Okumagba (1976) 6 – 10 SC 48. See also Arum V. Nwobodo (2013) ALL FWLR (Pt. 688) 870 @p. 893; Nruamah V. Ebuzoeme (2013) ALL FWLR (Pt. 681) 1426; Kano V. Maikaji (2013) ALL FWLR (Pt. 673) 1856 @ pp. 1868 – 1869; Ojah V. Eviawure (2000) FWLR (Pt. 57) 163; Okorie V. Onyejewu (2001) FWLR (Pt. 41) 1820; Morenikeji V. Adegbosin (2003) 8 NWLR (Pt. 825) 612; Egbo V. Agbara (1997) 1 NWLR (Pt. 481) 293 @ p.303; Ani V. Ewo (2004) 1 SC (Pt. 11) 115 @ p. 133; Romaine V. Romaine (1992) NWLR (Pt. 235) 650.
In Ezukwu v. Ukachukwu (2000) 1 NWLR (pt 642) 657 @ p. 679 it was reiterated inter alia thus:
“A claimant of title to land, of course, need not rely on more than one of the five methods. No. Where, however, he relies on

a pleaded method or way as a root of his title, then, if the pleaded root fails the alleged acts of ownership or possession derivative of the root necessarily ought to fail. Why? Because the title or the root of title needs must be, firstly established before the exercise of the rights of ownership may be exercisable.?

However, where the root of title relied upon is traditional history of title, then evidence of traditional history of title if conclusive is sufficient to ground a claim of title to land. Thus, where the evidence of traditional history of title is cogent, conclusive and without any unexplained gaps, it will not only suffice to establish title to land in dispute, but there would also be no need for the Court to further consider recent acts of ownership within living memory as enunciated in the locus classicus of Kojo II V. Bonsie (1957) 1 WLR 1223. See also Alade V. Awo (1975) 1 SC 215; Falomo V. Onakanmi (2005) 11 NWLR (Pt. 935,) 126 @ p. 158.

?Going by their pleadings, it would appear that both parties relied on traditional history of title in proof of their title to the land in dispute. The law is that a Party relying on

evidence of traditional history of title to land in dispute must plead and prove the following, namely; a. the name of founder of the land, b. in what manner the land was founded and the circumstances leading to it, c. the names or particulars of successive owners through whom the land devolved from the founder to the present party claiming ownership of the land. See Alade V. Awo (1975) 1 SC 215. See alsoAni V. Ewo (2004) 1 SC 115; Lawani Alli & Ors. V. Chief Gbadamosi & Ors.(2000) 6 NWLR p. 233; Oyadare V. Keji (2005) 7 NWLR (P1. 925) 571.
In other words, a party seeking a declaration of title to land, who relies on traditional history as proof of his root of title, must plead same sufficiently. That is to say, he must demonstrate in his pleading the original founder of the land, how he founded the land, the particulars of the intervening owners through whom he claims. Thus, where a party has not given such sufficient information in his pleadings as regards the origin or ownership of the land and the line of succession to himself, he has just laid foundation for the failure of his claim. SeeHyancith Anyanwu V. Robert Achilike Mbara (1992) 5

SCNJ. 90; Idundun V. Okumagba (1976) 9-10 SC 224; Atanda V. Ajani (1989) 3 NWLR (Pt. 111) 511.

?My lords, when in an appeal it is alleged that the judgment appealed against is against the weight of evidence, as in ground six of the notice of appeal, it is simply a call on this Court to review and re-evaluate the evidence in the printed record to determine if the Court below properly evaluated the evidence and made correct findings borne out by the evidence as led by the parties. However, it is the law that it is only where the Court below had not properly carried out its sacred duty of dispassionately evaluating the totality of the evidence led, and had thus failed in this primary duty, that an appellate Court would have the legal justification to intervene and re – evaluate the evidence on the printed record in order to make appropriate findings of facts in line with the dictates of justice to the parties. So, until an appellate Court arrives at such a conclusion the need for re – evaluation of evidence does not arise since an appellate Court has no business re ? evaluating the evidence and interfering with correct findings of a trial Court. See

Williams V. Tinubu (2014) All FWLR (Pt. 755) 200. See also Amuneke V. The State (1992) NWLR (Pt. 217)347; Sule Asariyu V. The State (1987) 4 NWLR (Pt. 67) 709; Nkebisi V. State (2010) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1188) 471; Woluchem V. Gudi (1981) 5 SC. 291; Enang V. Adu (1981) 11-12 SC. 25; Abisi & Ors. V. Ekwealor & Anor (1993) 6 NWLR (Pt. 302) 643; Igago V. The State (1999) 12 SCNJ 140 @ p. 160; Amala V. State (2004) 12 NWLR (Pt. 888)520.
?Thus, even where the appellate Court comes to the conclusion that there is need to re – evaluate the evidence, it must be borne in mind that evaluation and ascription of probative value to the evidence led is ordinarily the turf of the trial Court, and therefore, once a trial Court discharges that duty on the strength of the evidence placed before it, unless it arrives at perverse conclusions or findings not supported by the established evidence before it, an appellate Court should not interfere once the conclusions reached is correct, even if the reason turns out to be wrong. This is so because in law an appellate Court is not so much concerned with the correctness or wrongness of the reasons adduced by a trial Court for its

decisions or conclusions but rather more concerned with whether the decision reached or conclusion arrived at was correct or wrong; that is the law. See Alhaji Ndayako & Ors. V. Alhaji Dantoro & Ors. (2004) 13 NWLR (Pt. 889) 187 @ p. 198. See also Abaye V. Ofili (1986) 1 NWLR (Pt. 15) 134; Ukejianya V. Uchendu 18 WACA 46.
?It is also the law that an appellate Court which had not seen the witnesses testify and observed their demeanor in the witness stand should respect the views of the trial Court and not to readily substitute its own views for that of the trial Court except where it is shown that the conclusion or finding reached by the trial Court was perverse and for this an appellate Court will readily intervene to re-evaluate the evidence in the printed record if it is shown that the conclusions reached or findings made by the trial Court on the proved evidence before it do not flow from such proved facts or runs contrary to such proved facts and thus perverse. In such a case, the appellate Court is in good a position as the trial Court to intervene to re-evaluate the evidence in the printed record to draw necessary inference and make proper

findings on the proved and admitted facts in the record as the justice of the case requires but which the trial Court had failed to do. SeeObajimi V. Adeobi (2008) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1075) 1 @ P. 19. See also Owor V. Christopher (2010) All FWLR (Pt. 511) 962 @ 992; Sogbamu V. Odunaiya (2013) All FWLR (pt. 700) 1249 @ P. 1302; Mini Lodge V. Ngei (2010) All FWLR (Pt. 506) 1806 @ Pp. 1820 -1821; Sa?eed V. Yakowa (2013) All FWLR (Pt. 692) 1650 @ P. 1681.

In dealing with the evaluation of the evidence and the findings and conclusion reached thereon by the Court below in the light of the call on this Court by the Appellants to re-evaluate the evidence on the printed record, three crucial questions must first be answered, namely: a. what is the root of title relied upon by the respective parties from their pleadings and the evidence led thereon? b. who as between the Appellants, as Claimants, and the Respondents, as Defendants/Counter Claimants, proved title to the land in dispute by credible and cogent evidence as required by law? and c. whether the Court below was right to have granted title to the land in dispute to the Respondents?

Now, whilst the Appellants relied on traditional history of title to the land in dispute, the Respondents relied on both traditional history of title and previous arbitration decisions of the Elders and Traditional Council of the parties. In law, once the particular root of title is relied upon in proof of title to land in dispute, it is that root that must be proved and therefore, if that root fails, the claim to title fails. Once, the root of title relied upon fails, then all acts of possession and or ownership purportedly exercised consequent upon the failed root of title to land cannot sustain a claim of declaration of title to land and would rather become clear acts of trespass on the land in dispute at the suit of the person with a better title. See Regd Trustee of Diocese of Aba V. Helen Nkume (2002) 1 NWLR (Pt. 749) 726. See also Shuakani V. Tippi (2014) LPELR ? 24201 (CA) per Georgewill JCA @ pp. 58 – 60.
?It is also the law, and there is no dispute about it, that although a Claimant to title to land, as well as a Counter Claimant, is not required to prove more than one of the five ways of proof of title to land, where he fails to satisfy the Court on any

one or more of the five ways he relies on then his claim to title to land must fail. See Idundun V. Okumagba (1976) 9 – 10 SC 27. See also Chief Elemoro & Anor Vs. Chief Abiodun (2014) LPELR 23195; Piaro V. Tenalo (1976) 12 SC 31 @ p. 37; Dabo Vs. Abdullahi (2005) LPELR – 905 (SC).

?It was obvious to the Court below, and now obvious to me too, that the witnesses to the Appellants were not witnesses of truth and thus the Court below was right to discountenance their lies and disbelieve them since a Court of law should act only on credible and probable evidence. The law is well settled that notwithstanding the difficulty of discerning absolute truth by the mechanism of litigation and judicial discernment hinged upon evidence before the Court and irrespective of the imperfections of men, the litigation process is aimed at finding out the truth according to law and therefore, a party worthy of favourable consideration of the Court must endeavour to be consistent in both the facts he pleads and the evidence he leads in proof of those facts. A party will not therefore, be allowed to present at the trial evidence which are inconsistent with the case he has

pleaded. See Ajide V. Kelani (1985) 3 NWLR (Pt. 12) 248; Ezemba V. Ibeneme (2009) 14 NWLR (Pt. 789) 623.

Having calmly reviewed the pleadings and re – evaluated the evidence, both oral and documentary as led by the Appellants through CW1, CW2 and CW3 and the Respondents through DW1, DW2, DW3, DW4 and DW5, I hold that the finding by the Court below on all the issues in contentions between the parties on the strength of the issues joined in their pleadings are unimpeachable and impeccably correct and cannot therefore, be interfered with by this Court. In law, whenever a claim is made for title to land, such a claim must be established not merely on pleadings since it is declaratory in nature but on credible, consistent and probable evidence led in proof of one or more of the five ways of proving title to land.

?It also does appear to me, and as rightly found by the Court below, that in the face of the contradictory and discredited evidence of the CW1, the star witness for the Appellants, on the face of the far more credible evidence of all the witnesses for the Respondents, coupled with the contents of Exhibits D and E, the validity or otherwise of

which I shall soon consider, the Appellants failed woefully in their quest to expropriate the land in dispute away from its rightful owners, the Respondents, who by cogent, unbroken and far more probable traditional history of title clearly established their title to the land in dispute, as was correctly and rightly found by the Court below.

?What then is the status of Exhibits D and E in law? Do they qualify as customary arbitrations binding on the parties in the instant appeal? The parties are ad idem that the dispute over the land in dispute was taken before both Chiefs and Elders of Ilado Community as well as before the Oba Akran of Badagary, though they vehemently disagree over the outcomes. However, the Appellants had alleged fraud in their pleadings against Exhibits D and E. In law, the Appellants who had alleged fraud against the Respondents in relation to these documents, Exhibits D and E, were under a duty not only to plead the particulars of fraud, which they failed to plead, but also to prove their allegations of fraud beyond reasonable doubt, which by their evidence they also failed to do. It is clear therefore, to me that the Appellants

apart from alleging fraud against the Respondent in relation to these Exhibits D and E, did nothing else about it.
It must be pointed out at once that allegation of fraud is not a tea party, which one party merely alleges against the other party, and then folds his arms akimbo to see how the other party wriggles out of it. If he must succeed in his allegation of fraud, he must lead credible evidence in proof of such allegations, which being criminal in nature must be proved beyond reasonable doubt as required by law. See Section 135 of the Evidence Act 2011. See also Nwobodo V. Onoh (1984) 1 SCNLR 1; Aigbadion V. The State (2000) 4 SC (Pt. 1) 1; Maune V. Abdul (2001) 4 NWLR (Pt. 702) 95; Agwasin V. Ejivumerwerhaye (2001) 9 NWLR (?Pt. 716) 395; Olalomi Industries Ltd. V. NIDB (1992) 4 NWLR (Pt.233) 91 @ p.106.
Thus, an allegation of fraud contained in a pleading of a party, no matter how seemingly grave, unless its particulars are duly pleaded and credible evidence led in support to prove it beyond reasonable doubt as required by law, it is really of no moment and remains unproved and therefore, goes to no issue. See Olufunmise v Falana (1990) 3

NWLR (Pt. 136) 1; See also Agbi V. Ogbeh (2006) 1 NWLR (Pt. 990) 65; Nwobodo V. Onoh (1984) 1 SCNLR 1; Nwanguma V Ikyaande (1992) 8 NWLR (Pt. 258) 192; Ndoma Egba V. ACB Plc. (2005) 14 NWLR (Pt. 944) 79; Olalomi Industries Ltd. V. N.I.D.B (2009) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1167) 266; Omoboriowo V. Ajasin (1984) 1 SCNLR 108.

?While the Respondents alleged and called DW5 to prove that indeed the dispute over the land in dispute was resolved in their favor and a decision to that effect was reached by the Chiefs and Elders of Ilado Community and subsequently, at the instant of the Appellants? appeal, affirmed by the Oba Akran of Badagry in Council, the Appellant called CW1, who claimed to be one of the arbitrators and attempted orally to deny the contents of Exhibit D but without producing any other document evidencing the outcome of the arbitration. The Court carefully studied the contents of Exhibits D and E and considered them in line with the pleadings and evidence led by the parties and rightly, in my finding, disbelieved the CW1 while finding those documents are representing the truth of the outcome of the customary arbitration between the parties over the

ownership of the land in dispute. I find this decision by the Court below correct and have no reason, since none has been made out by the Appellants, to interfere with and disturb this correct finding of the Court below, a power which an appellate Court does not in fact and in law have interfering with and disturbing a correct finding by a trial Court. That is certainly neither the duty nor business of an appellate Court. See Alhaji Ndayako & Ors. V. Alhaji Dantoro & Ors. (2004) 13 NWLR (Pt. 889) 187 @ p. 198, where Edozie, JSC., had pronounced with finality on this vexed issue, thus:
?An appellate Court is only concerned with whether the judgment appealed against is right or wrong not whether the reasons given are right or wrong. Where the judgment is right but the reasons given are wrong, the appellate Court does not interfere. It is only where the misdirection has caused the Court to come to a wrong conclusion that the appellate Court will interfere….?
See also Abaye V. Ofili (1986) 1 NWLR (Pt. 15) 134; Ukejianya V. Uchendu 18 WACA 46.

?I have taken time to go through the contents of Exhibits D and E in the light of the

pleadings by the Respondents and considered the use to which both they and the Court below put it to and I am unable to agree with the vehement, though misconceived, contention by the Appellants that it was the basis, or indeed the only basis, for the finding of the Court below in favor of the Respondents in relation to the title to the land in dispute. The Respondents pleaded copiously and led evidence of unbroken traditional history of their title to the land in dispute, while the Appellants failed to plead and lead any consistent and cogent traditional history of their title to the land in dispute. I therefore, consider Exhibits D and E as merely superfluous.

?However, Exhibits D and E showed in very unmistaken terms that the Chiefs and Elders of Ilado Community, who should and do know the traditional history of ownership of lands in their Community, found and indeed stated so that they knew that the land in dispute belonged to the family of the Respondents by traditional history of title from time immemorial. That to me was enough and since the basis of the judgment of the Court below was principally the traditional history of the Respondents?

title to the land in dispute, the issue of whether Exhibits D and E constituted binding customary arbitrations and amounted to res judicata or at least issue estoppel is neither here nor there! It is of no moment and indeed of no crucial effect on the correct finding of the Court below as to the ownership of the land in dispute in favor of the Respondents as against the Appellants.

?However, in law for Exhibits D and E to operate and come within the doctrine of res judicata, the following preconditions must be satisfied, namely a: the parties or their privies as the case may be, are the same in the present case as in the previous case; b: that the issue and subject matter are the same in the previous suit as in the present suit; c: that the adjudication in the previous case must have been given by a Court of competent jurisdiction, and d: That the previous decision must have finally decided the issue between the parties. A failure to satisfy any of these conditions would result into failure of the plea of res judicata. I do not think that Exhibits D and E strictly satisfied these preconditions to operate and come within the doctrine of res judiacta, and I

so hold. See Musa Iyaji V. Sule Eyigebe (1987)2 NSCC (Vol. 18) 1035 @ p. 1043, where the Supreme Court per Oputa JSC., (God bless his soul) held inter alia thus:
?The legal principle of res judicata as enunciated and contained in the famous opinion of the judges delivered by De Grey, C. J. in the equally infamous case of the Duchess of Kingston? (1775-1802) All E.R. Rep 623 was that Judgment upon the same matter between the same parties were as a plea a bar and as evidence conclusive. The rule is a limitation of estopple per rem judicata to parties and their privies and it is an affirmation of the maxim ?res inter-alios acta alten nocere non potest?. Simply put the rule means that a final judgment already decided between the same parties or their privies on the same question by a legally constituted Court having jurisdiction is conclusive between the parties and the issue cannot be raised again.?
See also M. O. Odutola V. Chief Zaacheus Oderinde & Ors. (2004) 5 SC (Pt. II) 90 @ p. 92.

?In the light of all I have said and found as above, that the Court below was right in its findings and conclusions reached in

dismissing all the reliefs claimed by the Appellants against the Respondents, while granting all the reliefs counter claimed by the Respondents against the Appellants, I hereby resolve issues two, three and four in favor of the Respondents against the Appellants.

On the whole therefore, having resolved all the issues in this appeal in favor of the Respondents against the Appellants, I hold firmly that the appeal is bereft of merit and thus liable to be dismissed. I hereby so dismiss it.
In the result, the judgment of the High Court of Lagos State, Coram: B. A. Oke – Lawal J., in Suit No. ID/439/2008: James Ajayi & Anor V. Sunday Suru & Ors delivered on 19/2/2016 is hereby affirmed.
There shall be cost of N200, 000. 00 against the Appellants in favor of the Respondents.

UGOCHUKWU ANTHONY OGAKWU, J.C.A.: The evaluation of evidence and ascription of probative value thereto is the primary duty of the Court of trial. The trial judge, that peculiar adjudicator, is at the heat of the trial. He hears and sees the witnesses testify and observes their demeanour. Where the Court of trial which has this unparalleled

advantage of seeing and hearing the witnesses properly evaluates and ascribes probative value to the evidence and the findings made are not perverse, an appellate Court being restricted to the cold printed records cannot interfere.
I have insightfully considered the evidence on the record and it is effulgent that the lower court properly evaluated the evidence and ascribed probative value thereto. There is no basis on which an appellate Court will interfere. See ONI vs. JOHNSON (2015) LPELR (24545) – CA. BOARD OF CUSTOMS & EXCISE vs. BARAU (1982) LPELR (786) 1 at 47 and AGBABIAKA vs. SAIBU (1998) LPELR (222) 1 at 19-20.
It is for the foregoing reason that I am allegiant to the very articulated reasoning in the leading judgment of my learned brother, Biobele Abraham Georgewill. JCA. which I read in draft, and the indubitable conclusion that there is no legal basis on which the decision of the lower Court can be upturned on the facts: BALOGUN vs. AGBOOLA (1974) 1 ALL NLR (PT 2) 66 and EHOLOR vs.OSAYANDE (1992) LPELR (8053) 1 at 43. I join in dismissing the appeal on the same terms as set out in the leading judgment.

JAMILU YAMMAMA TUKUR, J.C.A.: My learned brother BIOBELE ABRAHAM GEORGEWILL JCA. afforded me the opportunity of reading before today a draft copy of the lead judgment just delivered.
I adopt the judgment as mine with nothing further to add.