MR. KAYODE ELABANJO V. ALHAJA RISIKAT ADEBOLA AJIGBOTESHO & ANOR
(2012)LCN/5796(CA)
In The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
On Wednesday, the 18th day of April, 2012
CA/I/282/2006
RATIO
LAND LAW: WAYS OF PROVING TITLE TO LAND
Title to land or ownership of land may be proved in any of the following five ways:
(1) By traditional evidence
(2) By production of documents of title which are duly authenticated
(3) By acts of selling, leasing, renting out all or part of the land or forming on it or on a portion of it.
(4) By acts of long possession and enjoyment of land and;
(5) By proof of possession of corrected or, and adjacent land in circumstances rendering it probable that the owner of such connected or adjacent land would in addition, be the owner of the land in dispute.
See IDUNDUN V. OKUMAGBA (1976) 9-10 S.C. page 227. The establishment of one of the five ways is sufficient proof of ownership. See ADESANYA V. ADEROUNMU (2000) 13 W.R.N. at 104; (2000) 9 N.W.L.R. Part 672 AT 370; EWO V. ANI (2004) 1 S.C.N.J. page 272 and NDUKABA V. IZUNDU (2007) 1 N.W.L.R. Part 1016 at 432. PER MODUPE FASANMI J.C.A.
APPEAL: CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE AN APPEAL COURT WILL INTERFERE WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE LOWER COURT
An Appeal Court will not interfere with the findings of the lower court except the findings are perverse or were not supported by credible evidence or there is miscarriage of justice or violation of the principles of law. See BALOGUN V. ADEJOBI (1995) 2 NWLR Part 376 Page 131; IROEGBU V. OKWORDA (1990) 6 NWLR 156 Page 643; ONIFADE V. OLAYIWOLA (1990) 7 N.W.L.R. Part 161 Page 130 and DAKOLO V. REWANE – DAKOLO (2011) 16 NWLR Part 1272 Page 22 at 48 paragraph H. PER MODUPE FASANMI J.C.A.
LAND LAW: WHAT PROOF OF OWNERSHIP ENTAILS
Proof of ownership is prima facie proof of possession. The presumption being that the person with title to the land is in possession. PER MODUPE FASANMI J.C.A.
JUSTICES
ADZIRA GANA MSHELIA Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
MODUPE FASANMI Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
JOSEPH SHAGBAOR IKYEGH Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
Between
MR. KAYODE ELABANJO Appellant(s)
AND
1. ALHAJA RISIKAT ADEBOLA AJIGBOTESHO
2. PRINCE ADEBAYO AJIGBOTESHO Respondent(s)
MODUPE FASANMI J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): This is an appeal against the judgment of an Ogun State High Court sitting in Ijebu-ode delivered on the 31st of March 2004.
The case of the Respondents as Plaintiffs in the trial Court is that the 1st Respondent bought a parcel of land situates and lying at Lagos Road from one Mr. Adeniyi Taiwo in 1977 and a receipt of purchase marked exhibit J dated 10th of February 1977 was issued to her. In furtherance of the purchase, 1st Respondent asserted that the said A. A. Taiwo delivered to her a deed of conveyance dated 16th October 1973 which was the root of title of A. A. Taiwo her predecessor in title and some exhibits by one Alhaji Sigunmaru who was the grantor to Adeniyi Taiwo. The documents were deposited with the Co-Operative Bank, Ijebu-Ode.
From the pleadings of the parties and the issues joined, the parties agreed as to the land which is the subject matter of the dispute before the Court. It was also not in doubt that the parties have their titles traced to one common vendor Alhaji Raji Sigunmaru alias Ajetunmobi. In evidence, the Respondents tendered several documents which included deed of conveyance between A. A. Taiwo as grantee the predecessor-in-title to the 1st Respondent and Alhaji Raji Sigunmaru as the grantor dated the 16th of October, 1973 as exhibit E while the Appellant herein as Defendant tendered exhibits L & M which are deeds of conveyance dated 20th December 1968 registered as 31/31/1108 and 30th December 1968 registered as 20/20/1108 respectively.
Appellant called three witnesses and tendered two exhibits i.e. exhibit L & M in support of his defence and counterclaim. The Respondents called four witnesses and tendered ten exhibits i.e. exhibit A-K in support of their claim for trespass and perpetual injunction. The Court in its judgment on the 31st of March 2004 gave judgment in favour of the Respondents. Dissatisfied with the judgment, Appellant appealed to this Court.
In accordance with the rules of this Court, Appellant filed his brief of argument dated 28th of February 2008 but filed on 29th of February 2008. It was deemed properly filed and served on the 5th of May 2009. Respondents’ brief of argument is dated and filed on 4th February 2010. It was deemed properly filed and served on the 1st of June 2011 Appellant’s reply brief is dated 9th June 2011 but filed on 10/6/11.
Learned Counsel for the Appellant distilled five issues for determination as follows:
(1) Whether Exhibit E which is the root of title of the Plaintiff/Respondent was properly admitted by the Honourable Court without more when indeed is the root of title of the Plaintiff/Respondent.
(2) Whether Adetola Adeniyi Taiwo the predecessor in title of the Respondent could have acquired a valid title from Alhaji Raji Sigunmaru by virtue of Exhibit G dated 27th of April 1971 which exhibits formed the basis of deed of conveyance between the said Alhaji R. Sigunmaru and Adetola Adeniyi Taiwo dated 16th of October, 1973 marked exhibit E and the same subject matter of dispute formed the basis of land sold to the predecessor-in-title to the Appellant herein which is the subject of exhibit L dated 20th of December 1968 and duly registered as 31/31/1108.
(3) Whether presumption of regularity will not avail exhibits L and M duly certified by the appropriate authority which document was duly authenticated and registered 32 years before it was tendered.
(4) Whether claim and proof of exclusive possession of land can displace the title of the Appellant whose title is prior in time to that of Plaintiffs/Respondents predecessors-in-title particularly when the two disputants traced their respective titles to a common vendor.
(5) Whether oral evidence no matter how seemingly credible can support and sustain document of title whose root are shaky and defective.
Learned Counsel for the Respondents adopted the issues formulated by the Appellant.
To avoid repetition of the issues, the appeal will be determined on issues 1, 2, 3 and 4. Issue 5 is subsumed in issue 4.
Issue One
Whether Exhibit E which is the root of title of the Plaintiffs/Respondents was properly admitted by the Honourable Court.
Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the learned trial Judge in the course of the trial admitted exhibit E which is a deed of conveyance between Sigunmaru (the grantor) and A. A. Taiwo (the grantee) dated 16th of October, 1973 against the objection of the learned Counsel for the Appellant. He submitted that the document being a registrable instrument and a document relating to land is a public document by virtue of Section 109 of the Evidence Act. Submitted further that it is only a secondary evidence of the document that is Certified True Copy that is admissible. He referred to the case of NZEKWU V. NZEKWU (1989) 2 N.W.L.R Part 104 page 373 where the Supreme Court held that a judgment of a Court being a public document within the meaning of that expression in Section 108 of the Evidence Act 1958 the secondary evidence is admissible in respect of the original document instituting the proceedings and the judgment of a Court is a Certified True Copy of the document but no other kind of secondary evidence. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that exhibit E is inadmissible as secondary evidence of a public document and that any document that is wrongly admitted in bound to be expunged by the Appellate Court.
Learned Counsel urged the Court to resolve issue one in favour of the Appellant.
Learned Counsel for the Respondents submitted that the learned trial Judge rightly admitted exhibit E. He referred to Section 91 of the Evidence Act. Submitted further that exhibit E is not secondary evidence but primary evidence under Section 94 of the Evidence Act. Reliance was placed on the case of TERTI V. UKPABI (1984) 1 S.C 370 at 412-573. He contended further that P.W2 through whom the document was tendered was the bank official in whose custody the original documents were. He urged the Court to resolve issue one in favour of the Respondents.
Section 91 subsection 1 of the Evidence Act states:
“In any civil proceedings where direct oral evidence of a fact would be admissible, any statement made by a person in a document and tending to establish that fact shall on production of the original document, be admissible as evidence of that fact.”
As a rule, all documents must be proved by primary evidence. The exceptions to the rule are contained in Section 97 of the Evidence Act Exhibit E does not come within these exceptions and it does not come under the operation of section 109 of the Evidence Act. Exhibit E i.e. Deed of conveyance between Sigunmaru (the grantor) and A. A. Taiwo (the grantee) dated 16th of October 1973 was pleaded in the statement of claim. Oral evidence was led to it as being the root of title of the Respondents. It is therefore primary evidence within the meaning of Section 94 of the Evidence Act See ALHAJI ETIKO V. AROYEWUN (1959) 4 F.S.C pg. 129 Exhibit E was rightly admitted under Section 91 (a)(i) and (ii) of the Evidence Act. Once a document is relevant, the issue of admissibility is therefore secondary. Issue one is hereby resolved against the Appellant.
Issue Two
Whether Adetola Adeniyi Taiwo the predecessor-in-title of the Respondent could have acquired a valid title from Alhaji Raji Sigunmaru by virtue of exhibit G dated 27th day of April, 1971 which exhibits formed the basis of Deed of Conveyance between the said Alhaji R. Sigunmaru and Adetola Adeniyi Taiwo dated 16th day of October 1973 marked exhibit E when the land which is the subject of exhibit E; and the same subject matter of dispute formed the basis of land sold to the predecessor-in-title to the Appellant herein which is the subject of exhibit L dated 20th day of December 1968 and duly registered as 31/31/1108.
Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that Sigunmaru, having conveyed title on Tunji Elabanjo the predecessor-in-title of the Appellant in 1968 does not have title in the same property to further convey on Taiwo in 1971, the purported conveyance on Taiwo in 1971 was null, void and invalid. He placed reliance on the case of AUTA V. IBE (2003) 13 N.W.L.R Part 837 page 266 paras D-F, 272 paras C-E where it was stated inter alia:
“Besides, it is settled law and in accordance with common sense that after a party has effectively divested himself of his interest in land or other res, no right naturally, vests in him to deal further with such land or res. This is in line with the maxim “nemo dat quod not habet” meaning no one can give that which he does not have.”
Also in the case of AGEH V. TORTYA (2003) 6 N.W.L.R part 876 page 396 paras E-E it was decided that where a person who has no title to a property sells the property to another, the sale is void ab-initio. Learned Counsel for the Appellant urged the Court to resolve issue two in favour of the Appellant.
Learned Counsel for the Respondents submitted that exhibits L and M are the root title documents of the Appellant. A careful perusal of these documents would show that notwithstanding that they are two distinct documents emanating from two entirely different persons, purportedly on the same parcel of land; they bear the same beacon numbers. They are YL5527, YL5528, YL5520, YL5521, YL5522, YL5523, YL5524 and YL5525. They also bear the same date and signature by Surveyor General that is 26/9/1968 and prepared by the same Surveyor on the same date which is 24/9/68.
He submitted further that the burden placed on a litigant to clearly and succinctly depict the identity of his land has not been discharged by the Appellant. This is shown from the existence of the same beacons for two different deeds as shown in exhibits L and M. Submitted that the discrepancies are material for any Court to grant a declaration in favour of the Appellant. Learned Counsel for the Respondents place reliance on the case of OTANMA V. YAUDUBAGHA (2006) 1 S.C. part III page 23 at 33. Learned Counsel for the Respondents urged the Court to resolve issue two against the Appellant.
Title to land or ownership of land may be proved in any of the following five ways:
(1) By traditional evidence
(2) By production of documents of title which are duly authenticated
(3) By acts of selling, leasing, renting out all or part of the land or forming on it or on a portion of it.
(4) By acts of long possession and enjoyment of land and;
(5) By proof of possession of corrected or, and adjacent land in circumstances rendering it probable that the owner of such connected or adjacent land would in addition, be the owner of the land in dispute.
See IDUNDUN V. OKUMAGBA (1976) 9-10 S.C. page 227. The establishment of one of the five ways is sufficient proof of ownership. See ADESANYA V. ADEROUNMU (2000) 13 W.R.N. at 104; (2000) 9 N.W.L.R. Part 672 AT 370; EWO V. ANI (2004) 1 S.C.N.J. page 272 and NDUKABA V. IZUNDU (2007) 1 N.W.L.R. Part 1016 at 432.
From the evidence on record, parties to this case relied on production of document which is one of the five ways of proving title to land and in all cases on land matter; the first task is to identify the land or property in dispute.
Where the identity of the land is in dispute, it is resolved by each side producing survey plans supported by credible evidence to satisfy the Court of the land or property in issue. But where the land or property is well known to both sides, the need no longer arises. See DAKOLO V. REWANE – DAKOLO (2011) 16 NWLR part 1271 page 22 at 45 paras C-D.
As earlier stated in this judgment, from the pleadings of the parties and the issues joined, the parties agreed as to the land which is the subject matter of the dispute before the Court. It was also not in doubt that the parties have their titles traced to one common vendor Alhaji Raji Sigunmaru alias Ajetunmobi. In evidence, the Respondents tendered several documents which included deed of conveyance between A. A. Taiwo as (grantee) the predecessor-in-title to the 1st Respondent and Alhaji Raji Sigunmaru as the (grantor) dated the 16th of October 1973 as exhibit E. The Appellant herein as Defendant tendered exhibits L & M which are deeds of conveyance dated 20th December, 1968 registered as 31/31/1108 and 30th December 1968 registered as 20/20/1108. The learned trial Judge at page 107 of the record in its judgment rightly held:
“On perusal of all these documents, the court observed that both parties traced their title to a common root i.e. Alhaji Raji Sigunmaru.”
Where two contending parties in a land dispute derive title from a common vendor, the first in time takes priority. This is summed up in the latin maxim “quo prior est tempore, potior est jure’, meaning the first in time has a better title. Appellant’s two conveyances exhibits L & M were prepared and dated 20/12/68 and 30/12/68 respectively while 1st Respondents deed of conveyance is dated 16th Oct. 1973. The resultant effect is that since the first to acquire title has a better title, then the latter in time must give way to the earlier one. The reason being that the grantor who divested himself of his title over the land in dispute to the first grantee would have nothing left to convey to the subsequent grantee. He who is first in time has a better claim in law and equity. See ADELALA V. FANOIKI (1990) 2 NWLR part 131 page 137 and AYANWALE V. ODUSANMI (2012) 3 W.R.N. page 1 at 14 lines 35-40. It is my view that the Appellant has a better title to the land in dispute. The learned trial Judge at page 108 of the record in its judgment found thus:
“The Plaintiffs in this case have produced documents of title vide exhibits E, F, G & J supported which with oral evidence in convincing based on which the Plaintiffs can be said to have” proved title to the land.
The defendant on the other hand joined issues with the Plaintiffs claiming ownership of the disputed land, tracing his root of title to one Alhaji Raji Sigunmaru. In proof of which exhibit ‘L’ Certified True Copy of Deed of conveyance dated 20th December 1968 between Alhaji Raji Sigunmaru and Tunji Elabanjo attached to which is a Survey Plan no OG/437B/68 dated 24/9/68 and exhibit ‘M’ Certified True copy of Deed of conveyance between Abasi Adebanjo Bello (DW1) and Tunji Elabanjo dated 20th December 1968 attached 25/9/68 with the portion verged red. These documents two are convincing.
Now the position of the land when both parties trace their root of title to a common person/vendor in that title is deemed to be in the party whose title is prior in time.
In the instant case, it is the Defendants whose title documents are dated 1968 and who led oral evidence in support of them”
With these findings, the learned trial Judge went ahead and gave judgment to the 1st Respondent because it found at page 109 of the record as follows:
“From the evidence before the court, the plaintiff proved being in exclusive possession of the land in dispute before the alleged trespass, they have thus satisfied the condition precedent to sustaining an action for trespass”
It is true that proof of ownership is prima facie proof of possession. The presumption being that the person with title to the land is in possession. In this instance, the grantor i.e. Alhaji Raji Sigunmaru having conveyed title on Tunji Elabanjo the predecessor in title to the Appellant in 1968 does not have title in the same property to further convey on Taiwo in 1971 the predecessor in title of the 1st Respondent. The purported conveyance on Taiwo in 1971 is null, void ab initio and of no effect. Issue two is hereby resolved in favour of the Appellant.
Issue Three
Whether presumption of regularity will not avail exhibits L and M documents duly certified by the appropriate authority which document were duly authenticated and registered 32 years before they were tendered.
Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the Appellant tendered exhibits L and M. They were duly certified by the appropriate authority. He urged the Court to have recourse to the presumption of regularity as provided for in Sections 123 and 130 of the Evidence Act. He submitted further that exhibits L and M are two different title documents arising from the fact that the predecessors-in-title to the Appellant derived his title to the plots of land from two different vendors. Submitted further that from the circumstances that at some stage, the title to the land were in the same vendor called Alhaji Raji Sigunmaru. Learned Counsel for the Appellant urged the Court to resolve issue three in favour of the Appellant.
Learned Counsel for the Respondents submitted that while exhibits L and M might have been duly executed, it is most humbly submitted that the irregularly and clear identity on their registration raise the issue as to whether the same land was sold to the Appellant’s father by two different persons. Learned Counsel for the Respondents submitted that the land in exhibit E is different from the land in exhibits L and M. He submitted further that the existence of the same beacons for two different deeds as shown in exhibits L and M depicted that the identity of his land has not been discharged by the Appellant. He referred to the case of OTANMA V. YOUDUBAGHA (2006) 7 S.C Part III page 23 at 33. Learned Counsel for the Respondents urged the Court to resolve issue 3 against the Appellant.
Exhibits E shows that the 1st Respondent through his predecessor-in-title purchased the land in 1971 while exhibits L and M show that the Appellant through his predecessor-in-title purchased the land in 1968. Appellant has shown a better title to the land in dispute. It is my view and I hold that the Appellant is the rightful owner of the land in dispute. Section 123 of the Evidence Act stipulates:
“Where any document purporting or proved to be twenty years old is produced from any custody which the Court in the particular case considers proper, the Court many presume that the signature and every other part of such document which purports to be in the handwriting of any particular person is in that persons handwriting and, in the case of a document executed or attested, that it was duly executed and attested by the persons by who it purports to be executed and attested.”
Where a person has been in possession of land for 20 years or a long time and he produces from his custody his title deeds, the custody is proper. By the provisions of Section 123 of the Evidence Act, if documents are not less than 20 years at the time of trial in which they are to be used, the Court will presume that the documents are regular and genuine, Exhibits L and M were executed in 1968 well over 20 years before proceedings commenced in this case. See OGBEHOR V. TRUSTEES C.C.C. (2002) 1 N.W.L.R Part 749 page 705 paras G-H, SOKWO V. KPUNGBO (2003) 2 N.W.L.R Part 803 at page 122 where this Court elaborated the position by stating in its decision that by virtue of Section 149(c) of the Evidence Act, a Court can presume regularity in respect of a document and the burden is on any person who challenges the regularity of the document to prove its irregularity.” See also AYANWALE V. ODUSAMI (2012) VOL. 3 W.R.N. page 1 at 15 lines 30-40. The discrepancies stated by the Respondents do not go to the root of the case. They are therefore not fatal. I therefore hold and resolve issue 3 in favor of the Appellant.
Issue Four
Whether claim and proof of exclusive possession of land can displace the title of the Appellant whose title is prior in time to that of Plaintiffs/Respondents predecessors-in-title particularly when the two traced their respective titles to a common vendor.
Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that no matter how the possession may be, whether exclusive or not cannot displace a good title and what more when the title is prior in time to that of the adverse party who is in exclusive possession. Appellant’s successor-in-title purchased the land in dispute herein from Sigunmaru in 1968, sequel to which the same Sigunmaru went ahead to sell the same land to Taiwo in 1971 when he himself (Sigunmaru) has divested himself of title in the property and infact there was nothing to sell again. Learned Counsel for the Appellant urged the court to discountenance the purported exclusive possession of the Respondents and hold that no matter how possession may be whether exclusive or not, it would not displace genuine title as in this case. Learned Counsel urged the Court to resolve issue four in favour of the Appellant.
Learned Counsel for the Respondents submitted that the Respondents have been in possession of the land as shown in exhibit E and they accordingly claim ownership of same. He submitted that their possession of the land gives them title against the whole world except the true owner of the land. The Respondents took possession by going into the land to survey, commenced and continued construction unhindered until 2001 when the Appellant went on the land and damaged the structure thereon. These acts are sufficient and numerous enough to warrant an inference of exclusive ownership. He relied on the case of EZEOKONKWO V. OKEKE (2002) 5 S.C. Part 1 Page 44 at 54. Learned Counsel urged the court to resolve issue four in favour of the Respondents and against the Appellant.
An Appeal Court will not interfere with the findings of the lower court except the findings are perverse or were not supported by credible evidence or there is miscarriage of justice or violation of the principles of law. See BALOGUN V. ADEJOBI (1995) 2 NWLR Part 376 Page 131; IROEGBU V. OKWORDA (1990) 6 NWLR 156 Page 643; ONIFADE V. OLAYIWOLA (1990) 7 N.W.L.R. Part 161 Page 130 and DAKOLO V. REWANE – DAKOLO (2011) 16 NWLR Part 1272 Page 22 at 48 paragraph H.
Proof of ownership is prima facie proof of possession. The presumption being that the person with title to the land is in possession. Appellant who was the 1st to purchase the land in dispute is regarded in law as the owner of the land as against the subsequent purchaser i.e. the 1st Respondent. The learned Judge’s findings of fact are therefore perverse. This court in the circumstance will interfere with the judgment of the lower court. Issue four is hereby resolved in favour of the Appellant.
Having resolved issues 2-4 in favour of the Appellant, the appeal is meritorious and it succeeds in part. The appeal is hereby allowed and the judgment of the lower court in Suit No. HCJ/32/2001 delivered on the 31st of March 2004 is hereby set aside. I will invoke the powers of this court under Section 15 of the Court of Appeal Act 2004 and enter judgment in favour of the Appellant as per his consequential Amended Statement of Defence and Counter Claim on reliefs 13 at the lower Court in suit No.HCJ/32/2001. Appellant who was the Defendant at the lower court is hereby granted:
1. A declaration of title in respect of all that piece or parcel of land covered by Deeds of Assignment registered as Nos. 31 at page 31 in volume 1108 and 20 at page 20 in volume 1109 respectively in Lands Registry in the office at Ibadan now kept at Abeokuta, Ogun State of Nigeria.
2. A declaration that the Defendant had being in lawful occupation and possession of all that piece or parcel of land covered by Deeds of Assignment registered as Nos 31 at page 31 in volume 1108 and 20 at page 20 in volume 1109 respectively in the Lands Registry in the office at Ibadan now kept at Abeokuta, Ogun State of Nigeria.
3. AND ORDER OF PERPETUAL INJUNCTION:
Restraining the Plaintiffs either by themselves agents, privies or however described from further trespass on the parcel of land more particularly described in the Deeds of Assignment registered as Nos 20/10/volume 1108 31/31/volume 1108 in the land registry at Ibadan now kept at Abeokuta, Ogun State of Nigeria.”
Relief 4 is refused since the 1st Respondent was not aware that the original vendor Alhaji Raji Sigunmaru did not divest any title to her predecessor in title A.A. Taiwo. Finally N30, 000:00k cost is hereby awarded in favour of the Appellant.
ADZIRA GANA MSHELIA, J.C.A.: I have had the advantage of a preview in draft of the lead judgment just delivered by my learned brother FASANMI, J.C.A and for the reasons clearly stated by him; I agree that this appeal should be allowed in part. I will therefore allow the appeal in part and set aside the decision of the lower court. I also adopt the consequential orders made in the lead judgment, cost inclusive.
JOSEPH SHAGBAOR IKYEGH, J.C.A.: I am in full agreement with the judgment just pronounced by my learned brother, Fasanmi, J.C.A., which I had the privilege of reading in draft. Going by the evidence before the court below, the appellant and the respondents bought the disputed piece of land from the same or common vendor: while the appellant bought the disputed piece of land in 1968, the respondents, on the other hand, bought it in 1973, therefore by operation of the principle of priority of title the appellant’s purchase was earlier in time and prevailed over the respondents’ purchase which was later in time – See Dearle & Anor. V. Hall & Ors (1824-34) ALL E.R. (reprint) 28 at 35.
“The ground of this claim is priority of time. They rely upon the well-known maxim, borrowed from the civil law, which in many cases regulates equities:- ‘Qui prior est in tempore potior est in jure.’ If, by the first contract, all the thing is given, there remains nothing to be the subject of the second contract, and priority must decide.”
See also Ugbo and Others v. Aburime (1994) 8 NWLR (pt. 350) 1 at 19. It is for the reason given above and the fuller reasons given in the thorough judgment of my learned brother, Fasanmi, J.C.A., that I too allow the appeal in part and abide by the consequential orders contained in the said judgment.
Appearances
CHIEF TAIWO AJALA with OPEYEMI IGBAYILOYEFor Appellant
AND
RESPONDENT COUNSEL WAS ABSENTFor Respondent
