LawCare Nigeria

Nigeria Legal Information & Law Reports

THOMAS & ANOR v. SANI & ORS (2020)

THOMAS & ANOR v. SANI & ORS

(2020)LCN/15599(CA)

In The Court of Appeal

(YOLA JUDICIAL DIVISION)

On Thursday, October 15, 2020

CA/YL/117/2018

Before Our Lordships:

Chidi Nwaoma Uwa  Justice of the Court of Appeal

James Shehu Abiriyi Justice of the Court of Appeal

Abdullahi Mahmud Bayero Justice of the Court of Appeal

Between

1) MR. EZEKIEL THOMAS (GENERAL MANAGER, COMMUNITY AND SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT TARABA STATE) 2) ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TARABA STATE APPELANT(S)

And

1) HAJIYA RAKIYA SANI 2) MARYAM ISA 3) UNITED WOMEN GROUP MULTIPURPOSE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. RESPONDENT(S)

 

RATIO:

Party who fails to object to the admission of a document, cannot later object to the admission of the document by the trial Court at the appellate Court

The law is trite and well settled too, that if party fails to raise objection to the admissibility of a document tendered by an opposite party, the person/party who fails to object to the admission of such document, cannot later raise the issue of admission of the document by the trial Court at the appellate Court. See Alade vs Olukade (1976) 2 SC 183 at 119; Bredero Nigeria Limited vs. Shyantor Nigeria Limited & Ors. (2016) LPELR 40205 (CA); Oseni vs. State (2012) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1193) 351; Archibong vs. The State (2006) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1000) 349/ 377 378; Union Bank vs. Samson Moronfoye (2017) LPELR 43164; Udo vs. State (2016) LPELR 40721 (SC), Raimi v Akintoye (1986) 3 NWLR (Pt.26) 97 and Anagbado v. Faruk (2018) LPELR-44909 (SC).The doctrine of estoppel by conduct is even applicable in such a situation. ABDULLAHI MAHMUD BAYERO, J.C.A.

Matter bothering on evidence

By the express provision of Section 4(2) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), it is clear that it is only the National Assembly that has the power to legislate on matters bordering on evidence. In the case of A.G. Federation V. A.G. Lagos State (2013) LPELR 20974 (SC), the Supreme Court held thus:
“The Constitution itself has given the interpretation of the terms “Exclusive Legislative List” and “Concurrent Legislative List”, Whereas the former refers to the “List” in Part 1 of the Second Schedule to the Constitution, the latter refers to the “List” of matters set out in the First Column in Part 11 of the Second Schedule to the Constitution with respect to which the National Assembly and House of Assembly may make laws to the extent prescribed, respectively, opposite thereto in the second column thereof. The exclusivity referred to in the Exclusive Legislative List, although not comprehensively defined may perhaps, refer to a point where the enactment in question is capable of excluding all others, shutting out other considerations not shared by or divided between others. The enactment is sole and single in its form and application as appropriated by its exclusive right.
Therefore, apart from the National Assembly, no other legislative assembly whether of state or Local Government (if any) can legally and effectively legislate on any matter listed under the exclusive Legislative List.
As for the Concurrent Legislative List, it is clear that both the National and State Assemblies can competently legislate on a matter concurrently having at the back of the legislators’ mind, the operation of the doctrine of covering the field (as summed up earlier). “
See also the case of A. G. Lagos State v. Eko Hotels Ltd. & Anor. (2006) LPELR 3161 (SC). ABDULLAHI MAHMUD BAYERO, J.C.A.

A piece of evidence admissible in evidence under the Evidence Act cannot be rendered inadmissible in evidence by any law enacted by the House of Assembly of any State.”

It follows therefore, that even if Exhibits P9, P10 and P11 were made inadmissible by the Land Registration Law, CAP 75, Laws of Taraba State, 1997, since they are admissible under the Evidence Act, 2011, they cannot be made inadmissible in law.
The Supreme Court in the case of Anagbado v. Faruk (2018) LPELR 44909 (SC), while interpreting similar provision, held thus:
“The Appellant had made an issue of whether Exhibit P2, the letter of offer issued to the Respondent, was a registrable document which must be previously registered under the Kaduna State lands Registration Law Cap 85 Laws of Kaduna State, 1991 before it would be admissible in evidence. Section 15 of the said Law, Cap, 85, provides:
No instruments shall be pleaded or given in evidence in any Court as affecting any land unless the same shall have been registered in the proper office as specified in Section 3.
The purport of this law, as argued by the Appellant, is that a registrable land instrument, which though is a material and relevant piece of evidence under the Evidence Act, 2011 which has not been so registered under the Law Cap 85 is not admissible in evidence in any Court of Law. The argument neither impresses nor convinces me. The Law Cap, 85 of Kaduna State (Section 15 thereof), in so far as it purports to render inadmissible any material and relevant piece of evidence that is admissible in evidence under the Evidence Act, 2011, is to that extent inconsistent with the Evidence Act, enacted by the National Assembly pursuant to the powers vested in it by Section 4(2) of the Constitution and Item 23 of the Exclusive Legislative List  set out in Part r of the Second Schedule to the Constitution, Evidence is Item 23 in the Exclusive Legislative List. I am of the firm view that, in view of Section 4(5) of the Constitution read with Section 4(2) and Item 23 of the Exclusive Legislative List set out in Part I of the Second Schedule to the Constitution, in the event of Section 15 of the Law Cap 85 of Kaduna State being in conflict or inconsistent with any provisions of the Evidence Act, the provisions of the Evidence Act shall prevail, The sum total of all I am saying, on this issue, is that Section 15 of the Kaduna State Law Cap 85 cannot render inadmissible Exhibit P2 which evidence is material, relevant and admissible in evidence under the Evidence Act, 2011. A piece of evidence admissible in evidence under the Evidence Act cannot be rendered inadmissible in evidence by any law enacted by the House of Assembly of any State.” ABDULLAHI MAHMUD BAYERO, J.C.A.

 
ABDULLAHI MAHMUD BAYERO, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): By an amended writ of summons dated 29/02/2016, the Respondents/Plaintiffs claimed against the Appellants/Defendants as follows:-
a) A DECLARATION that the Defendants’ refusal to hand over to the Plaintiffs’ the Skills Acquisition Center lying and situate at adjacent to the gate of Jolly Nyame Garden City Estate, Mile Six for the training of community women is wrongful, oppressive and illegal.
b) A DECLARATION that the Defendants’ acts of locking up and refusing to allow the Plaintiffs’ and their community women access to Skills Acquisition Center lying and situate at adjacent to the gate of Jolly Nyame Garden City Estate Mile Six for the purpose of training of community women is wrongful, oppressive and illegal.
c) AN ORDER of this Honourable Court compelling the Defendants’ to hand over to the Plaintiffs’ the Skills Acquisition Center lying and situate at adjacent to the gate of Jolly Nyame Garden City Estate, Mile Six for the training of community women.
d) AN ORDER of perpetual injunction restraining the Defendants’, their privies, representatives and agents from further locking up, interfering and or doing anything whatsoever and howsoever prejudicial to the interest and holding of the Plaintiffs’ on the Skills Acquisition Center lying and situate at adjacent to the gate of Jolly Nyame Garden City Estate Mile Six in whatsoever guise.
e) Cost of filing and prosecuting this suit.
OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE
(f) AN ORDER compelling the Defendants’ to pay the 1st Plaintiff the sum of Seven Million Naira (N7,000,000.00) being the value of her land and interest to be paid on the loan obtained from Micro-Finance Bank for the purchase of the land.
(g) AN ORDER compelling the Defendants’ to pay the Plaintiffs the sum of Five Million Naira (N5,000,000.00) as general damages.

Pleadings were exchanged and the matter went to full trial. Both the Appellants/Defendants and the Respondents/Plaintiffs called three (3) witnesses each. The lower Court delivered Judgment in favour of the Respondents. Dissatisfied, the Appellants’ filed their Notice of Appeal on 2/05/2018. The record of Appeal was compiled and transmitted to this Court on 13/11/2018.

The Appellants’ Brief of argument was filed on 27/12/2018; the Respondents Brief was filed on 4/03/2019. The Appellants Reply Brief was filed on 4/06/2020 but was deemed as properly filed and served on 10/09/2020. In the Appellants Brief, the following three issues are formulated for determination: –
1) Whether the trial Court was right to have relied on inadmissible evidence and also arrived at the conclusion that the 1st Respondent could exercise her right of ownership over the land in dispute. (Distilled from Grounds 3 and 5 of the Notice of Appeal).
2. Whether the trial Court was right to have relied on Exhibit “P3” to arrive at the conclusion that the Taraba State Government had sold the land in contention to Hajiya Jamila Garba Umar which she later sold same to the 1st Plaintiff without establishing the root of the vendor’s title. (Distilled from Grounds 1 and 4 of the Notice of Appeal).
3. Whether the Respondents have discharged the burden of proof as required by law to warrant a shift of same on the Appellants. (Distilled from Grounds 2 and 7 of the Notice of Appeal).

On issue one, it was submitted that the Respondents’ case before the lower Court relate to a transaction affecting interest on a landed property situated in Jalingo, Taraba State – Pages 76-91 of the record of Appeal. That the Respondents while attempting to prove their claims, tendered Exhibits “P2”, “P3”, “P9”, “P10” and “P11” respectively which were admitted as documents of their title.

According to Counsel, Exhibit “P2” which is a Deed of Assignment executed between the 1st Respondent (The assignee) and Hajiya Jamila Garba Umar (The assignor) is a Public document and that all the remaining are documents are also Public documents within the meaning of Sections 102(b) and 102 (a) (iii) of the Evidence Act, 2011 respectively. That the Respondents tendered secondary evidence of all the above documents and were admitted by the lower Court in proof of their contents without certification thereof as required by Section 104 of the Evidence Act, 2011, despite objection thereto by the Appellants’ Counsel – G & T Investment Ltd. v. Witt & Bush Ltd. (2011) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1250) 500 at 533. According to Counsel, Exhibits “P2”, “P3” and “P11” are public documents originals of which are in the possession of the Respondents as documents supposedly handed over by the assignor. That Exhibits “P9” and “P10” are letters purportedly written by the 1st Respondent’s assignor (Hajiya Jamila Garba Umar) to the Ministry of Works, Housing and Transport and the Respondents made no efforts to obtain certified true copies thereof or at best summon or subpoenaed an official from the said Ministry to tender copies thereof; yet the lower Court proceeded to admit the uncertified copies of these documents tendered from the bar by the Respondents’ Counsel on the basis that all the exhibits enumerated above were relevant to the facts in issue and had probative value which it attached weight to.

Counsel further submitted that the resultant effect of an inadmissible document admitted by the Court is that same has no probative value, is worthless and without weight and ought to be expunged from the record.

That Exhibits P2, P3, P9, P10 and P11 admitted and relied upon by the Lower Court are instruments of title paraded by the 1st Respondent and that by Sections 2 and 15 of the Land Registration Law, Cap. 75, Laws of Taraba State, 1997 must be registered – Ogbimi v. Niger Construction Ltd. (2006) 9 NWLR (Pt. 986) 474 at 493 Paras. E-F.

That since Exhibits P3, P9, P10 and P11 were not registered as required by Section 15 of the Land Registration Law, Cap. 75, Laws of Taraba State, 1997 they ought not to have been pleaded in the first place, much less admitted into evidence by the trial Court – Akinduro v. Alaya (2007) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1057) 312 at 330-331 Paras. E-B. Counsel urged the Court to invoke its power under Section 16 of the Court of Appeal Act and expunge them from the record. That PW3 is not the maker of the said Exhibits as such not the proper person through whom the Exhibits should have been tendered – Section 83(1)(b) & (4) of the Evidence Act, 2011 and the case of Lambert v. Nigerian Navy (2006) 7 NWLR (Pt. 980) 514 at 544-545 Paras. H-A. He urged us to resolve the first issue in favour of the Appellants.

On issue two, it was submitted that Exhibit P3 forms the root of the title to the land allegedly sold to the 1st Respondent (PW3) by the Taraba State Ministry of Works, Housing and Transport, that no evidence was led to show how the Ministry of Works, Housing and Transport derived its title or its authority to allocate/sell the land in dispute -I.B.B Industries Ltd. v. Mutunci Company (NIG.) Ltd. (2012) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1297) 487 at 525-526. According to Counsel, the lower Court’s reliance on a Deed of Assignment (Exhibit P2) by the Ministry of Works, Housing and Transport and Exhibit P3 (a Revenue Collector’s Receipt) without ascertainment of the pre-requisites of valid document(s) of title has indeed occasioned a grave miscarriage of justice.

According to Counsel, the evidence of PW1 and PW3 contradicted each other as to the ownership of the land in dispute when PW1 stated under cross-examination that the land in dispute is not that of the PW3. He urged the Court to resolve the second issue and allow this appeal on this ground.

As to issue three, it was the Counsel’s submission that the burden of proof in civil cases squarely lies on the Plaintiff (Respondents in this case) to prove their claims or reliefs – Section 133 of the Evidence Act, 2011 and the case of Iseogbekun v. Adelakun (2013) 2 NWLR P 141 (SC).

That the Respondents attempted to prove their title to the land in dispute by producing documents which were overtly inadmissible evidence yet admitted by the trial Court. That the Appellants as submitted in their arguments on Issue No. 1 have urged this Court to discountenance all the inadmissible evidence tendered and erroneously admitted by the trial Court. That if their argument is uphold on that issue, the Respondents’ case would fail. According to Counsel, the entire evidence of the Respondents on record shows that the Respondents have failed to prove their claim to warrant the Appellants being called upon to adduce any evidence to the contrary. That trial Court was in error by shifting the burden of proving the illegality of the 1st Respondents’ transactions over the land in dispute – Osidele & 2 Ors. v. Sokunbi Vol. 5 L.L.A.C 385 Ratio. 5. He urged the Court to resolve issue three in favour of the Appellants and against the Respondents and allow the appeal.

In the Respondents Brief, the following issues are formulated for determination. Thus:
1. Whether the decision of the trial Court admitting Exhibits P2, P3, P9, P10 and P11 in evidence and attaching probative value to them is valid in law? (Distilled from grounds 1 and 3 of the grounds of Appeal.
2. Whether having regard to the leadings, evidence on record and the position of the law, the judgment of the trial Court granting the reliefs of the respondents is sustainable? (Distilled from grounds 2, 4, 5 and 7 of the grounds of Appeal).

On issue one, it was submitted that the Appellants did not formulate any issue for determination from ground 6 of the grounds of appeal and therefore deemed abandoned and should be struck out – Bredero Nigeria Limited v. Shyantor Nigeria Limited & Ors. (2016) LPELR 40205 (CA). That the Appellants did not object to the admissibility of Exhibits P2-P8 when they were tendered in evidence – Pages 302 and 378 – 379 of the Printed record. That the Appellants objected to the admissibility of only three (3) Exhibits P9, P10 and P11 which the Court overruled them and admitted into evidence – Pages 378 – 381 particularly Page 381 of the Printed Record.

That since the Appellants failed or refused to object to the admissibility of Exhibits P2 and P3 before the trial Court; they have waived their right to object to same in this Court – Nasir v. Civil Service Commission Kano State & Ors. (2010) LPELR 1943 (SC) 11, Paras. B – E and Okon v. The State (2017) LPELR 43612 (CA).

According to Counsel, the trial Judge was right in law to have relied on the exhibits tendered without objection to arrive at his decision – Oyedele v. Odumosu (2016) LPELR 41441 (CA) 21, Paras. D – F and Anagbado v. Faruk (2018) Vol. 284 LRCN 23 – 24, Paras. F – F. According to Counsel, the Appellants argued that Exhibits P2, P3, P9, P10 and P11 are inadmissible in evidence by virtue of the provision of Section 15 of the Land Registration Law, CAP 75, Laws of Taraba State, 1997. According to Counsel, the Land Registration Law, CAP 75, Laws of Taraba State, 1997 cannot regulate the admissibility of documents made admissible under the Evidence Act, 2011 – A.G. Federation v. A.G Lagos State (2013) LPELR-20974 (SC). That even if Exhibits P2, P10, and P11 are inadmissible by virtue of the Land Registration Law, CAP 75, Laws of Taraba State, 1997, since they are admissible under the Evidence Act, 2011, they cannot be made inadmissible in law – Anagbado v. Faruk (Supra). He urged the Court to resolve issue one in favour of the Respondents and against the Appellants.

On issue two, it was submitted that the Appellants did not specifically deny the fact that Hajiya Jamila Garba Umar was allocated the disputed land and that she subsequently applied for the same land to be sold to her. That they did not deny the fact that she paid the sum of Two Million Naira (N2,000,000.00) to the Taraba State Government for the purpose of the purchase of the land. That at Paragraph 20 of their further amended Defendants’ Joint Statement of Defence, at Page 443 of the Record of Proceedings, the Appellants/Defendants admitted expressly that there was an allocation of the said land to Hajiya Jamila Umar Garba. That the trial Court was right to have acted on the above admitted facts. According to Counsel, even without the said exhibits, this admission and the oral evidence given have established this fact and the judgment of the trial Court on that fact cannot be disturbed by this Court. That at Paragraphs 17, 18 and 19 of the Respondents’ Statement of Claim, they pleaded that Hajiya Jamila Umar Garba later sold the land to the 1st Respondent at the consideration sum of Four Million Naira (N4,000,000.00), that she collected loan of Three Million Five Hundred Thousand Naira (N3,500,000.00k) from Taraba Microfinance Bank (Nig) Ltd and paid for the said land. That these facts were equally not denied by the Appellants.

That the law is trite that facts pleaded which are not denied or controverted need no proof – Orianzi v. Attorney-General Rivers State &Ors. (2017) LPELR 41737 (SC). That the evidence of DWI clearly shows that the Ministry of Works, Housing and Transport had the power to alienate the disputed land and that the said transaction between the Ministry and the said Hajiya Jamila Garba Umar over the said land is valid – Pages 392-393 of the Printed record. According to Counsel, the judgment of the trial Court is therefore supported by evidence on record. That the Taraba State Government having approved the application of Hajiya Jamila Garba Umar to buy the disputed land, collected money from her and issued her with Revenue Receipt cannot now turn back and say the transaction is illegal with the sole aim of benefiting from their own wrong; and to allow the Appellants benefit from their own wrong will occasion grave injustice to the Respondents – Oceanic Bank International Plc. v. Brokenn Agro Allied Industries Ltd. (2008) LPELR 4671 (CA) and Gadzama & Anor. v. Adamu & Ors. (2014) LPELR 24363 (CA).

He urged the Court to resolve the second issue in favour of the Respondents and against the Appellants and dismiss the appeal.

In the Reply Brief, it was submitted that even though Exhibits P2 and P3 were tendered and admitted in evidence without objection from the Appellants at the trial Court, it is an admitted fact that the said exhibits were by law registrable instruments. That the effect of Section 15 of the Land Registration Law, Cap. 175, Laws of Taraba State, 1997 is that an unregistered instrument cannot even be pleaded or tendered or produced in evidence. That if it is admitted through an oversight or inadvertence or because no objection was taken as to its admissibility, it stands to be expunged by the Court since its exclusion is enjoined by law – Gbinijie v. Odji (2011) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1236) 103; Savannah Bank Plc. v. Ibrahim (2000) 6 NWLR (Pt. 662) 585; Registered Trustees M.H.C v. Adeagbo (1992) 2 NWLR (Pt. 226) 690 and W.A.C Ltd. VS. Yankara (2008) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1077). According to Counsel, where a document that is inadmissible in evidence is admitted without objection, the Court can at the stage of judgment reconsider the document and expunge it from its records. SeeShanu & Anor. v. AfriBank Nig. Plc (2003) FWLR (Pt. 136) 823.

That where the document is legally inadmissible, the issue of its inadmissibility can be raised even on appeal – G. chitex Industries Ltd. v. Oceanic Bank International (Nig.) Ltd. (2005) ALL FWLR (Pt. 276) 610.

According to Counsel, where the admissibility of a document is prescribed by law, as in the instant case, the document must meet the requirements/conditions prescribed by that law. Section 15 of the Taraba State Land Registration Law, 1997 enjoins the registration of all documents sought to be tendered before the Court for the purpose of proving or establishing title to land or interest in land to be admissible in evidence.

He urged the Court to discountenance the submissions of counsel to the Respondents and hold that Exhibits P2 and P3 not having satisfied the requirements of the law, were inadmissible even if not objected to by the Appellants – Abdullahi & Ors. v. Adetutu (2019) LPELR-47384 (SC). Counsel further submitted that Grounds one (1) and three (3) of the grounds of appeal flow from the final judgment of the trial Court delivered on 2nd February, 2018 simpliciter and not from the Interlocutory rulings of 2nd February, 2017 or that of 21st November, 2016 as contended by the Respondents. That the issue of admissibility of documents at this stage of the case on appeal does not in any way constitute a new issue requiring the leave of Court; and that the Appellants’ grudge stems from the reliance placed on Exhibits P2 and P3 erroneously/wrongly admitted by the Lower Court against the express provisions of the extant laws governing their admissibility. That the Appellants’ thereby cannot be said to have raised a new issue. According to Counsel, none of the grounds of appeal complains against any interlocutory ruling of the trial Court necessitating the filing of an appeal within 14 days as contended by the Respondents – Page 560 of the record of appeal.

After a careful scrutiny of the issues formulated by the Appellants and the Respondents in this Appeal, the sole issue that calls for determination in my humble view is:-
“Whether the 1st Respondent had by the production of Exhibits P2, P3, P9, P10 and P11 proved her title to the land in dispute to be entitled to Judgment before the lower Court or not.”

From the claims of the Respondents as contained in the amended writ of summons and the statement of claim which I reproduced earlier in this judgment, the claims relate to transaction affecting interest on a landed property. Through PW3, the Respondents tendered Exhibits P2 (Deed of Assignment between the vendor (Hajiya Jamila Garba) of the land to the 1st Respondent and Hajiya Rakiya Sani (the 1st Respondent), P3 (Taraba State Government revenue receipt for payment of the land allotted to Hajiya Jamila (the vendor), P9 and P10 (Applications for the allocation of the land by Hajiya Jamila Garba), P11 (Approval of the allocation of the land to Hajiya Jamila Garba).

A careful look at the Record of Appeal at Page 302 shows that the Appellants/Defendants did not object to the admissibility of Exhibits P2 and P3 when they were tendered before the Court below. The Court admitted the documents into evidence at Pages 302 and 304 as Exhibits P2 and P3 respectively. The Appellants are now challenging the admissibility of the documents on Appeal at Paragraph 4.01.6 of their Brief of argument. The issue for determination is whether having not objected to the admissibility of Exhibits P2 and P10 at trial, the Appellants can do that before this Court? The law is trite and well settled too, that if party fails to raise objection to the admissibility of a document tendered by an opposite party, the person/party who fails to object to the admission of such document, cannot later raise the issue of admission of the document by the trial Court at the appellate Court. See Alade vs Olukade (1976) 2 SC 183 at 119; Bredero Nigeria Limited vs. Shyantor Nigeria Limited & Ors. (2016) LPELR 40205 (CA); Oseni vs. State (2012) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1193) 351; Archibong vs. The State (2006) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1000) 349/ 377 378; Union Bank vs. Samson Moronfoye (2017) LPELR 43164; Udo vs. State (2016) LPELR 40721 (SC), Raimi v Akintoye (1986) 3 NWLR (Pt.26) 97 and Anagbado v. Faruk (2018) LPELR-44909 (SC).

The doctrine of estoppel by conduct is even applicable in such a situation. The Court below was therefore on a sound footing when it admitted and acted on those Exhibits.
It therefore follows that the Appellants cannot be heard before this Court to complain on the admissibility of Exhibits P2 and P3 tendered and admitted before the lower Court.

The Appellants on Page 303 of the record of Appeal objected to the admissibility of Exhibits P9, P10 and P11 into evidence before the Court below on the ground that they are Public documents. This brings me to the point raised by the Appellants regarding the non-certification of the documents which according to them are photocopies or secondary evidence of public documents which require certification. As rightly found by the lower Court, looking at Exhibits P9 and P10, it is not doubtful that they are documents made by Hajiya Jamila Garba (who sold the land to the 1st Respondent). Exhibit P9 is a letter or application made by Hajiya Jamila to the Ministry of Works Housing and Transport, Taraba State applying for the allocation of the plot in dispute, while Exhibit P10 represents Hajiya Jamila’s letter dated 9/06/2014 accepting the allocation of the said plot. Exhibit P11 is a letter addressed to Hajiya Jamila conveying the allocation of the land to her. These documents exhibited or tendered to my mind even though photocopies, they do not require any certification since they are not public documents in accordance with Section 102 of the Evidence Act, 2011 requiring certification but are rather private documents in accordance with Section 103 of the Evidence Act, 2011 which in law, do not require any certification since they are correspondences between Hajiya Jamila and government officials or agencies. See the case of Anagbado v. Faruk (supra).

The Appellants argued at paragraphs 4.01.11 – 4.01.19 of pages 13 – 16 of the Appellants’ Brief of Argument, that Exhibits P9, P10 and P11 are inadmissible in evidence by virtue of the provision of Section 15 of the Land Registration Law, CAP 75, Laws of Taraba State,1997.
The above stated submission which tends to render inadmissible documents which are relevant and admissible under the Evidence Act, 2011, is unfounded and unsustainable having regard to the current position of the law. The Land Registration Law, CAP 75, Laws of Taraba State, 1997 cannot regulate the admissibility of documents made admissible under the Evidence Act, 2011. By the express provision of Section 4(2) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), it is clear that it is only the National Assembly that has the power to legislate on matters bordering on evidence. In the case of A.G. Federation V. A.G. Lagos State (2013) LPELR 20974 (SC), the Supreme Court held thus:
“The Constitution itself has given the interpretation of the terms “Exclusive Legislative List” and “Concurrent Legislative List”, Whereas the former refers to the “List” in Part 1 of the Second Schedule to the Constitution, the latter refers to the “List” of matters set out in the First Column in Part 11 of the Second Schedule to the Constitution with respect to which the National Assembly and House of Assembly may make laws to the extent prescribed, respectively, opposite thereto in the second column thereof. The exclusivity referred to in the Exclusive Legislative List, although not comprehensively defined may perhaps, refer to a point where the enactment in question is capable of excluding all others, shutting out other considerations not shared by or divided between others. The enactment is sole and single in its form and application as appropriated by its exclusive right.
Therefore, apart from the National Assembly, no other legislative assembly whether of state or Local Government (if any) can legally and effectively legislate on any matter listed under the exclusive Legislative List.
As for the Concurrent Legislative List, it is clear that both the National and State Assemblies can competently legislate on a matter concurrently having at the back of the legislators’ mind, the operation of the doctrine of covering the field (as summed up earlier). ”
See also the case of A. G. Lagos State v. Eko Hotels Ltd. & Anor. (2006) LPELR 3161 (SC).
It follows therefore, that even if Exhibits P9, P10 and P11 were made inadmissible by the Land Registration Law, CAP 75, Laws of Taraba State, 1997, since they are admissible under the Evidence Act, 2011, they cannot be made inadmissible in law.
The Supreme Court in the case of Anagbado v. Faruk (2018) LPELR 44909 (SC), while interpreting similar provision, held thus:
“The Appellant had made an issue of whether Exhibit P2, the letter of offer issued to the Respondent, was a registrable document which must be previously registered under the Kaduna State lands Registration Law Cap 85 Laws of Kaduna State, 1991 before it would be admissible in evidence. Section 15 of the said Law, Cap, 85, provides:
No instruments shall be pleaded or given in evidence in any Court as affecting any land unless the same shall have been registered in the proper office as specified in Section 3.
The purport of this law, as argued by the Appellant, is that a registrable land instrument, which though is a material and relevant piece of evidence under the Evidence Act, 2011 which has not been so registered under the Law Cap 85 is not admissible in evidence in any Court of Law. The argument neither impresses nor convinces me. The Law Cap, 85 of Kaduna State (Section 15 thereof), in so far as it purports to render inadmissible any material and relevant piece of evidence that is admissible in evidence under the Evidence Act, 2011, is to that extent inconsistent with the Evidence Act, enacted by the National Assembly pursuant to the powers vested in it by Section 4(2) of the Constitution and Item 23 of the Exclusive Legislative List  set out in Part r of the Second Schedule to the Constitution, Evidence is Item 23 in the Exclusive Legislative List. I am of the firm view that, in view of Section 4(5) of the Constitution read with Section 4(2) and Item 23 of the Exclusive Legislative List set out in Part I of the Second Schedule to the Constitution, in the event of Section 15 of the Law Cap 85 of Kaduna State being in conflict or inconsistent with any provisions of the Evidence Act, the provisions of the Evidence Act shall prevail, The sum total of all I am saying, on this issue, is that Section 15 of the Kaduna State Law Cap 85 cannot render inadmissible Exhibit P2 which evidence is material, relevant and admissible in evidence under the Evidence Act, 2011. A piece of evidence admissible in evidence under the Evidence Act cannot be rendered inadmissible in evidence by any law enacted by the House of Assembly of any State.”

The sole issue for determination is therefore resolved in favour of the Respondents and against the Appellants. The Appeal is unmeritorious and is hereby dismissed. The Judgment of the lower Court in Suit No. TRSJ/5/2016 delivered on 2/02/2018 is hereby affirmed. Parties to bear their respective costs.

CHIDI NWAOMA UWA, J.C.A.: I read in advance a draft of the judgment delivered by my learned brother ABDULLAHI MAHMUD BAYERO, JCA. I am in agreement with my learned brother that the appeal lacks merit, I dismiss it for the same reason and abide by the orders made as to costs.

JAMES SHEHU ABIRIYI, J.C.A.: I agree.

Appearances:

C. S. Gani, Principal State Counsel, Taraba State Ministry of Justice. For Appellant(s)

Martin Milkman, Esq. For Respondent(s)