UDO v. IDUNDUN & ANOR (2022)

UDO v. IDUNDUN & ANOR

(2022)LCN/16565(CA)

In The Court Of Appeal

(ASABA JUDICIAL DIVISION)

On Friday, May 20, 2022

CA/AS/434/2017

Before Our Lordships:

Joseph Olubunmi Kayode Oyewole Justice of the Court of Appeal

Boloukuromo Moses Ugo Justice of the Court of Appeal

Sybil Onyeji Nwaka Gbagi Justice of the Court of Appeal

Between

MRS THERESA UDO APPELANT(S)

And

1. DR. PETER IDUNDUN 2. MRS PATRICIA NWANGORO (For Themselves And On Behalf Of Etsemaye Gate Of Idundun Family In Okere Warri. RESPONDENT(S)

RATIO

WHETHER OR NOT AN APPELLATE COURT CAN INTERFERE WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE TRIAL COURT

THE POSITION OF LAW ON THE DUTY OF EVERY CITIZEN TO REPORT AN OFFENCE THAT HAS BEEN COMMITED, TO THE LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES

“With regard to the arrest by the E.F.C.C., I think it ought to (sic) stressed that it is the duty of every citizen who suspects on reasonable ground that an offence has been committed to report to the relevant law enforcement agencies and it is the duty of the law enforcement agencies to investigate the report. Consequently, an action for false imprisonment does not lie against a party who makes the report upon which the law enforcement agency on its own initiative arrests a suspect. But where the informant instigated the arrest and detention of the suspect, he may be liable for false imprisonment under the law of tort. See Afribank (Nig.) Plc Vs. Onyima (2004) 2 NWLR (Pt. 854) 654, Fajemirokun Vs. Commercial Bank (Credit Lyonaise) Nig. Ltd (2009) All FWLR (Pt.487) 1, at 6.
“On the Claimant’s own showing she altered a document made in the name of ldundun family to her own name, Mrs. Theresa Udo without the knowledge and consent of the Defendants who were unsure as to the exact amount of money paid to the Claimant by the Delta State Government as compensation for the mud houses. I think in the circumstance, Defendants had reasonable ground to suspect that an offence may have been committed to petition to the E.F.C.C. There is no evidence the Defendants did anything more than writing of the E.F.C.C. to render the Defendants personally liable for the detention of the Claimant by the E.F.C.C. Claimant’s remedy, if any, on this issue is against the E.F.C.C. I hold that the Claimant is entitled to damages. “PER UGO, J.C.A.

BOLOUKUROMO MOSES UGO, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): This appeal is from the judgment of the High Court of Delta State of the 20th day of June, 2017 in Suit No W/407/2014. Appellant, as plaintiff at the lower Court, claimed against the Respondents as Defendants, jointly and severally, in paragraph 36 of her Statement of Claim:
a. A declaration that she (Claimant) is a bona fide member of the ldundun family through the Etsemaye gate as the Defendants and therefore a joint owner of the properties known as No. 23, 25 and 27 Ekpen Street, Okere, Warri.
b. An order of Court allowing her to collect the sum of ₦3,015,804.75k (Three Million, Fifteen Thousand, Eight Hundred and Four Naira, Seventy-Five Kobo) being the outstanding actual amount the defendants are owing her, which sum was expended on the buildings known as No. 23, 25 and 27 EKpen Street, Warri.
C. An order of perpetual injunction restraining the Defendants their servants, agents, privies from further harassing intimidating her (the claimant) using thugs, the police, Youth Bodies or EFCC in any issue relating to the properties known as No. 23, 25 and 27 Ekpen Street, Okere, Warri jointly owned by the descendants of ldundun family through the Etsemaye gate.
d. An order of this Honourable Court directing the defendants to pay to her (Claimant) the sum of N1,000,000 (one million naira) as payment aforesaid. for managing the properties.
e. The sum of ₦10,000,000 as damages against the Defendants for unlawfully harassing embarrassing her (the Claimant) using thugs, the Okere youths and causing the officials of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) to clamp down on her without lawful cause.”

Her case, from her pleadings and evidence, was that she is a descendant of her maternal grandfather Late Pa Idundun, the original owner of the properties, through Mene (f) lineage of Etsemaye, also called Otsemaye, gate, and that she is a joint owner of Plot Nos 23, 25 and 27 Ekpen Street, Okere Warri, with the respondents who are also grandchildren of Late Idundun through the same Otsemaye gate of Idundun. It is common ground that at sometime in the past, with the acquiescence of respondents, she pulled down the mud that the said properties were and put up modern structures there, just as it is also undisputed that she in the past claimed for herself compensation paid by Delta State Government for its encroachment on part of the land covered by the said property in issue.

Respondents, while conceding that they are of the same Etsemaye gate of Idundun like appellant, asserts that their grandfather Late Pa Idundun gifted the aforementioned properties to only his two sons, their fathers Edomi and Peter Ulionerajolo by Etsemaye to the exclusion of their sister Mene, appellant’s grandmother, so the properties in issue do not belong to the whole of the Etsemaye/Otsemaye gate of ldundun family but only to the Edomi and Peter Ulionerajolo lineages of Etsemaye. On the strength of that, they also counterclaimed against appellant for:
i. A declaration that the plots numbered as 23, 25 and 27 Ekpen Street, Okere, Warri within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court, originally founded by Pa. ldundun of blessed memory were inherited by the Defendants from their fathers Mr. Ulionerajolo ldundun and Mr. Edomi ldundun, the said plots having been given specially to their aforementioned fathers as their exclusive properties by Pa. Idundun.

ii. Payment to them (defendants) of the sum of ₦10,842,656.00 been monies paid to the Claimant by the Delta State Government as compensation for the destruction of the properties of the defendants.

iii. An order directing the Claimant to render an account of all the rent collected from all the tenants in respect of the 34 stores, 1 self-contained apartment, 8 rooms and 2 toilets built on the Defendants’ piece or parcel of land at Okere Warri within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court from 2005 up till 31st of January, 2015.
iv. An order of perpetual injunction restraining the claimant, her servants, privies an agents from further collecting any rent from any or the tenants in respect of the 34 shops, 1 self-contained apartment and 8 rooms and from entering and/or doing anything whatsoever on the said land.
v. Interest of 21% per annum on the aforementioned sum of ₦10,842,656.00 from the year 2006 till judgment is delivered by this Honourable Court.
vi. Interest of 10% on the said sum of N10,842,656.00 from the date of judgment until the judgment sum is fully liquidated.

These claims and counterclaims were tried before Onojovwo J., of the High Court of Delta State. Appellant testified and called no witness. The two respondents also testified in their defence and in proof of their counter-claim and called no further witness. A reasonable quantity of documentary evidence was also tendered by parties in the process.

At the end of the trial, the learned trial Judge in his judgment found in favour of respondents on the crucial issue of the ownership of the properties in issue thus:
“In all the circumstances, I find the story of the Defendants credible and probable. On the totality of the evidence there is preponderance of evidence on the side of the defendants as against the evidence of the claimant who relied entirely on her ipse dixit evidence.
“I believe the Defendants and find as fact that Pa. ldundun gave the land which is now plots nos. 23, 25 and 27 to his two sons, Edomi and Peter Ulionerajolo to the exclusion of Mene (1) and others. I reject the Claimant’s unsupported story of joint ownership with the Defendants. I resolve that the land comprising plots nos. 23, 25 and 27, Ekpen Street, Okere, Warri is the property of Edomi/Peter Ulionerajolo lineages of ldundun family, excluding the Mene lineage.”

After making further findings on other ancillary assertions of both parties, the Court finally ordered as follows first on the claims of appellant:
a. The land in dispute not being property of Etsemaye gate of ldundun family, relief (a) is dismissed.
b. The Claimant shall be entitled to collect a sum to be determined after an ascertainment and verification of the amount actually expended by the Claimant on the building known as Nos. 23, 25 and 27 Ekpen Street, Okere, Warri less the amount she has collected as rents and compensation in respect of the buildings.
c. The Defendants, their servants, agents, and privies are hereby restrained from using the police or E.F.C.C. against the claimant in respect of any strictly civil issue relating to the properties known as Nos. 23, 25 and 27 Ekpen Street, Okere, Warri.
d. The Defendants shall pay to the Claimant ₦500,000.00 (five hundred thousand naira) as payment for managing the properties aforesaid.
e. Relief (e) fails and it is dismissed.

On respondents’ counter-claim, it ordered thus:
i. I hereby declare the plots numbered as 23, 25 and 27 Ekpen Street, Okere, Warri within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court, owned by Pa. ldundun of blessed memory were inherited by the Defendants from their fathers, Mr. Ulionerajolo Idundun and Mr. Edomi ldundun, the said plots having been given specially to their aforementioned fathers as their exclusive properties by Pa. ldundun.
ii. Relief ii fails and it is dismissed.
iii. The Claimant is hereby ordered to render an account of all the rent collected from all the tenants in respect of the 34 stores, 1 self-contained apartment, 8 rooms and 2 toilets built on the Defendants’ piece or parcel of land at Okere, Warri from 2005 till 31st of January, 2015.
iv. I hereby make an order of perpetual injunction restraining the claimant, her servants, and agents from further collecting any rent from any of the tenants in respect of the 34 shops, 1 self-contained apartment and 8 rooms and from entering and/or doing anything whatsoever on the said land without the consent of the Defendant.
v. Relief v fails and it is dismissed.
vi. Relief vi fails and it is dismissed. Appellant is aggrieved by that judgment and has brought this appeal against it to this Court on six grounds and framed from her grounds the following five issues for determination by this Court:
1. Whether the learned trial judge was right when he held that the property known as number 23, 25 and 27 Ekpem Street, Okere, Warri is not the property of Etsemaye gate of Idundun family but that the property were inherited by respondents from their forefathers Ulionerajolo Idundun and Edomi Idundun having been given to their aforementioned fathers as their exclusive properties by Pa Idundun.
2. Whether the learned trial judge was right when he refused the appellant from collecting the sum of ₦3,015,804.75k being an amount owed the appellant by the respondents, which sum was expended on the buildings known as No. 23, 25 and 27 Ekpen Street, Okere Warri.
3. Whether the learned trial judge was right when he restrained the appellant from further collecting rents or entering the subject matter of this appeal without the consent of the respondents.
4. Whether the learned trial judge was not wrong when he ordered the appellant to render account of all the rents collected from all the tenants in respect of the subject matter of this appeal from 2005 till 2015.
5. Whether from the facts of this case, the learned trial judge was right when he dismissed the claim of ₦10,000,000.00 (Ten Million Naira) only as damages against the respondents for unlawful harassment and embarrassment.

Respondents on their part reasoned, and I agree with them, that only the following two issues arose for determination from appellant’s grounds of appeal:
1. Whether the lower Court was right in holding from the evidence before it that the land comprising plot 23, 25 and 27 Ekpen Street, Okere, Warri is the property of Edomi/Peter Ulionerajolo lineages of Idundun family, excluding Mene lineage as claimed by the respondents.
2. Whether the lower Court was right from the evidence before it in making the orders made by it with regards to the claim of the appellant and the counterclaim of the respondents.

Arguing her issue 1, appellant through her counsel P.A. Oboreh submitted that the lower Court misapplied the evidential burden of proof when it found that the properties in issue known as Nos. 23, 25 and 27 Ekpen Street, Okere Warri were not the property of Etsemaye gate of Idundun family but belonged to respondents exclusively who inherited same from their fathers Peter Ulionerajolo Idundun and Edomi Idundun. She argued that the weight of evidence adduced at the trial was against the dismissal of her declaration and the grant by the lower Court of respondents’ declaration. She said she averred in all her pleadings before the Court that the said properties were jointly owned by Etsemaye gate of the Idundudn family and she is a descendant of Idundun through the same Estemaye gate, a fact she said was not disputed by respondents but rather admitted by them. She said her evidence that Pa Idundun in his lifetime gave out the said properties to the Etsemaye gate of his family and handed over the properties to his two sons Peter Ulionerajolo and Edomi Idundun in the presence of named witnesses was not shaken even under cross-examination so the trial Court was required by law to act on it and we should so act on it. As against her unshaken credible evidence, she submitted, respondents were unable to make out their claim of exclusive ownership of the said properties by their Peter Ulionerajolo and Edomi Idundun branches. She submitted that even Exhibits T and K they produced to support their claim were rather contradictory on the issue, in that whereas Exhibit T states that the properties were given exclusively to Peter Ulionerajolo and Edomi Idundun by Pa Idundun, Exhibit K stated that they were their owners/founders. In the face of these weighty admissions by Respondents and the contradictions in Exhibits T and K, the lower Court, she submitted, misdirected itself when it held that the properties in dispute did not belong to the entire Etsemaye gate of Idundun family but respondents’ inheritance through their late fathers, Peter and Edomi Idundun, to whom the properties were exclusively given by their father, late Pa Idundun.

On her issue 2, she argued that the learned trial judge also misdirected himself on the facts when he refused to grant her claim for ₦3,015,804.75k even when, according to her, respondents admitted owing her the said amount. She said that even though she averred to the said debt in paragraphs 23 and 26 of her Statement of Claim and also frontloaded Exhibit J showing the expenses she incurred in putting up the buildings and drawings from the account, respondents did not dispute the said averments, meaning that they admitted it. Facts that are admitted need no proof so the lower Court was wrong in refusing to grant her relief for the said debts. She said even 1st respondent admitted under cross-examination that she told them that the family was indebted to her in the sum of ₦3,000,000.00 and that they have not paid that amount.

Appellant relied on her arguments in issue 1 in arguing her issue 3 of the wrongness of the order of injunction granted by the learned trial judge restraining her from further collecting rent or entering the properties, the subject matter of this appeal, without the consent of respondents. She said respondents did not prove that they are exclusive owners of the said properties so the injunction granted by the lower Court against her was misplaced. She submitted, too, that the same order also conflicts with the Court’s earlier finding that there was a binding agreement between respondents and her that she shall continue to collect rents from the properties to offset the expenses she incurred in building them. She also pointed to the ₦3,000,000.00 she averred respondents owed her.

Her straightforward argument on issue 4 is that, having regards to Exhibit J tendered by her showing that she had rendered to respondents accounts of the rents collected by her from the property, the lower Court was wrong in ordering her to render accounts to respondents.

On her issue 5 which relates to the order dismissing her claim for damages of ₦10,000,000.00 against respondents for unlawful harassment and embarrassment, she referred us to paragraphs 31, 32, 33 and 36(e) of her Statement of Claim where she made that claim and averred to how respondents used their community youths to harass and intimidate her, which prompted her to report them to the Police through her petition, Exhibit L; how they also intimidated and harassed her further by reporting her to Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC, that she converted compensation of ₦10,842,656.00 collected by her from Delta State Government for her family, as a result of which EFCC arrested and detained her for a whole week. She submitted that respondents also admitted during final address at the lower Court that they did not put before it sufficient evidence to prove their relief that she actually collected ₦10,842,656.00 from Delta State Government. She thus argued that the lower Court failed to properly and correctly evaluate the evidence adduced before it in coming to the conclusion dismissing her claim for the said ₦10,000,000.00 damages. In further support of that, she particularly directed the attention of this Court to the fact that the lower Court granted her relief (c) for her an order restraining respondents from using the Police or EFCC against her in respect of any strictly civil issue relating to the properties known as Numbers 23, 25 and 27 Ekpen Street, Okere Warri. That, she argued, confirmed her argument, that she was indeed harassed and intimidated and her rights infringed by the acts of the respondent over the properties, the subject matter of this appeal, so the refusal of the Court to award her damages was wrongful.

Respondents on their part, in arguing the first of their two issues, supported the decision of the lower Court that from the evidence, the land comprising Plot Nos. 23, 25 and 27 Ekpen Street, Okere, Warri is the property of Edomi/Peter Ulionerajolo lineages of Idundun family, excluding appellant’s Mene lineage. In doing that, they made the point that the case of both parties revolve entirely on facts, with each side stoutly asserting its claim to the properties in issue; that the appeal is also against the findings of the lower Court on those facts after testing the available oral evidence with available documentary evidence as it is required by law to do. They then referenced the pleadings of both parties and the evidence adduced in support of, quoted extensively from the findings of fact of the lower Court and submitted that that Court was right in that finding so there is no basis for this Court to interfere. They then took on the correctness of the orders of the lower Court one after the other, meticulously reproduced the pleadings of both parties, the evidence adduced by parties in support of them and the decision of the of the lower Court granting or refusing the said orders and submitted that the decision of the lower Court on each of its orders was well founded.

Resolution of issues
As I observed earlier, the two issues framed by respondent adequately reflect and embrace the five issues of appellant. Issue 1 of Respondent regarding whether the lower Court was right in holding that the land comprising Plots 23, 25 and 27 Ekpen Street, Okere Warri is the property of Edomi/Peter Ulionerajolo lineages of Idundun family excluding appellant’s Mene lineage is the same as appellant’s issue 1 while appellant’s issues 2, 3, 4 and 5 which questioned separately the lower Court’s refusal or grant of each of the other ancillary reliefs sought by parties is adequately covered by respondent’s issues 2 which discussed them under one issue. I shall therefore adopt respondent’s two issues for the determination of this appeal.

But in doing that, I must necessarily recognize that this appeal is basically against findings of fact of the lower Court. That is an issue on which the appellate Court usually respects the decision of the trial judge who saw and listened to witnesses testify to the facts in issues on which he reached his conclusions. Katsina-Alu J.S.C. (later C.J.N.) stated proper attitude of an appellate Court to findings of fact of a trial Court when he said in Nwadiogbu v. Nnadozie (2001) F.W.L.R. (PT 61) 1625 AT 1636 that:
“The position of the law is this: that an appellate Court should not interfere with the findings of the trial Court unless the findings are not supported by the pleadings and/or evidence or are perverse.”
See also Agbonifo v. Aiwereoba & Anor (1988) 1 NSCC 237 AT 245, Odofin v. Ayoola (1984) NSCC 711 AT 733, Olanrewaju v. Governor of Oyo State & Ors (1992) LPELR-2570 (SC) P.19 para E-F.

Using that as my compass, I now take on issue 1 above on which the appellant and her cousins the respondents are diametrically opposed. That issue is whether on the evidence oral and documentary adduced before the lower Court by parties, it was right in holding that the land comprising Plot Numbers 23, 25 and 27 Ekpen Street, Okere, Warri is the property of Edomi/Peter Ulionerajolo lineages of Idundun family to the exclusion of Mene lineage of appellant. The trial judge, in tackling this issue, first acknowledged that it is common ground that the said properties were initially the property of Pa Idundun, the common grandfather of appellant’s mother, Mene, and respondents’ fathers, Peter Uionerajolo and Edomi. From that agreement, he then stated the position of the law, correctly, that the burden of proof that such hitherto common family property was now exclusively that of respondents to the exclusion of appellant was on respondents who were claiming exclusive ownership. That statement of the law, neither party has issues with. Where appellant disagrees with the learned trial judge is his findings immediately following that statement of the law, where he said as follows:
“The claimant who claimed the land was given to the Etsemaye gate by Idundun did not call any witness. In like manner the Defendants who claimed the land was given to Edomi and Peter Ulionerajolo by Idundun did not call any witness to support their story.
“It does not sound strange to me that in our Nigerian society which is predominantly patrilineal a father could give land to his sons and exclude his daughter who, all things being equal, ought to go out in marriage into another family.
“The rents from the mud houses built on the land was used to take care of Etsemaye in her old age. After the death of Etsemaye, Peter Ulionerajolo Idundun took over the property, appointed an agent, a certain Mr. Obire, to collect rents and remit to him in Lagos. When Ulionerajolo was not satisfied with the performance of Mr. Obire, he requested the claimant to see to it that Mr. Obire lived up to his duties and remitted rents collected to him in Lagos. Mr. Ulionerajolo used the money for his upkeep without question from anybody. Under cross-examination, the claimant admitted that Mr. Ulionerajolo maintained that the property was his own because he was the head of the family being the only surviving child of Idundun at the time and that the rents collected during the lifetime of Ulionerajolo were never shared because they were for his upkeep. He exclusively used the rents collected up till his death. Even after the demise of Ulionerajolo, the claimant handed out all rents collected to the 2 Defendant. These rents were never shared and there is no evidence the claimant or any other member of ldundun family from any lineage other than Peter Ulionerajolo lineage ever demanded for or shared in the rents.
“The foregoing lend support to the case of the Defendants that the land was given by ldundun to Edomi and Peter Ulionerajojo exclusively. If that was not so, why did Ulionerajolo treat the property as his own. Being head of family is not the same as being sole owner of a property. Why did Claimant remain satisfied to assist to manage the property and collect rents and hand Ulionerajolo first, then later to the Defendant without demanding even a taken share of the rents? As a supposed co-owner of the property she never asserted any ownership right over the property. Besides, while the story of joint ownership appeared to have emerged with the Conversion of mud houses to stores, self-contain etc, the Defendant’s claim of exclusive ownership appear to predate the building of the stores. By the minutes of meeting of Otsemaye Idundun grand children held in lbadan on 10/22/1995, Exhibit “T”, the Defendants asserted the exclusive ownership of the property at Okere by Pa. Edomi and Pa. Ulionerajolo same having been given to them by their father in 1922. The claimant disparaged Exhibit “T” contending that there was no such meeting and that Exhibit “T” was made for this case. With respect, I do not think it is sufficient for the Claimant to blandly assert that there was not such meeting. The attendance at the meeting does not include her name and it is not her case that she was in lbadan, the venue of the meeting as at December, 1995. I believe the defendants that there was a meeting of the grand children of Otsemaye Idundun held in lbadan on 10/12/1995 and Exhibit “T” is the meeting of that meeting. Exhibit “T”, made well before the dispute of ownership of the property at Okere arose, supports the oral evidence of the defendants. The law is that where there is oral evidence as well as documentary evidence, the documentary evidence should be used as hanger from which to assess oral testimony. A corollary of this principle is that where oral evidence is supported documentary evidence, it outweighs oral evidence not supported. See ….
“In all circumstances, I find the story of the Defendants credible and probable. On the totality of preponderance of evidence on the side of the Defendants as against the evidence of the Claimant who relied entirely on her ipsi dixit. The evidence there is I believe the Defendants and find as fact that Pa. ldundun gave the land which is now plots nos. 23, 25 and 27 to his two sons, Edomi and Peter Ulionerajolo to the exclusion of Mene (1) and others. I reject the Claimant’s unsupported story of joint ownership with the Defendants. I resolve that the land comprising plots nos. 23, 25 and 27, Ekpen Street, Okere, Warri is the property of Edomi/Peter Ulionerajolo lineages of ldundun family, excluding the Mene lineage.”

Not only are these findings supported by the evidence, documentary and oral adduced by parties before the lower Court as shown on the records of appeal before us, the reasoning and all the inferences drawn by the learned trial judge are also sound and well founded. In fact, appellant has not succeeded in even the slightest way in convincing me that they are perverse. In the result, I hereby resolve this issue against her.

Issue 2: Whether the lower Court was right from the evidence before it in making the orders made by it with regards to the claim of the appellant and the counter-claim of the respondents.

I shall here try to tackle separately, appellant’s complaints against the each of the orders the lower Court made or refused to make that she has issues with. First is her complaint that the lower Court wrongly refused to grant her claim for ₦3,015,804.75k as outstanding amount owed her by respondents for her expenses in erecting the properties known as Nos. 23, 25 and 27 Ekpen street, Okere, Warri even after it had agreed with her that respondents were indebted to her. Appellant is certainly not correct in her contention, for in actual fact the lower Court found in her favour on that issue. If anything, what it said was that, that claim, having regards to the compensation due to respondents from Delta State Government that she was proved to have wrongfully received without accounting to them, respondent’s indebtedness to her as claimed by her involved some arithmetic which it was not good at so further computation would be needed and should done to ascertain the exact amount of their indebtedness to her and same should be paid to her. This is exactly what the learned trial judge Court said on that issue:
“It is not disputed that the houses on the three plots were old mud houses and that it was the Claimant who built them into 34 shops, 1 self-contained apartment, 2 toilets and 8 rooms. The Defendants do not dispute the fact that they did not make any personal financial contribution to the building of the shops and rooms etc. They admit that they have not paid back to the Claimant any money she spent on the project. I find as fact from the evidence of the Claimant, the 1st Defendant and 2nd Defendant that the defendants either authorized or consented to the Claimant building up property from mud houses into shops etc on the understanding that she would reimbursed for expenses incurred. Even as far back as in 1995, at the family meeting at Ibadan as gleaned from Exhibit “T”, it was resolved that anyone who raised funds to develop the estate would be repaid in full plus interest from rents realized from the property. Even in Exhibit R the Defendants’ solicitors’ letter inviting the Claimant to a meeting, the issue to be discussed was the expenses incurred by Claimant and how to redeem her claims.
“On the evidence before me, it is also not disputed that the Claimant collected rents from tenants and ₦1,498,377.50 as compensation from the Delta State Government for the demolished mud buildings which were ploughed into the building project. By the Claimant’s own showing the first set of tenants took shops and paid two years advance to her in 2006 while the second set of tenants paid three years rent advance in 2007 and that she collected rents up till May 2013 when Defendant’s counsel wrote Exhibit “K”, stopping tenants from paying her rents.
“I am satisfied on the evidence before me that the Claimant is entitled to be reimbursed for expenses she incurred in the building of the shops, self contained rooms and toilet after deduction of the amount she collected as rents before and after the erection of the buildings and the sum she collected as compensation from the Delta State Government. Regrettably, I am unable to come to the difference between the sum expended by the Claimant and rents and compensation collected by her. Perhaps it is my fault that my arithmetic is too deficient to enable me accurately compute the exact figure from the avalanche of receipts, invoices and other documents heaped on the Court as exhibits.
“It is therefore my view that the claimant is entitled to be reimbursed to the tune of an amount to be determined after an ascertainment and verification of the actual amount expended by the Clamant on the buildings known as Nos. 23, 25 and 27 Ekpen Street, Okere, Warri less the amount she collected as rents and compensation in respect of the buildings.”

Appellant’s next complaints against the lower Court’s orders granting reliefs (iii) and (iv) of respondents, namely an order restraining her from further collecting rents on the properties in issue without the consent of respondents and, for her to render accounts of all the rents she collected from tenants in the properties from 2005 to 2015, flow directly from that Court’s finding that respondents’ own to her exclusion the said properties from which she had been collecting rent over the years and not rendering account to them. As shown above, the Court was quick to balance the scales of justice by ordering that respondents pay to her, her expenses after due computation of what she had also denied them by way of the compensation earlier paid to her by Delta State Government for the said property, which monies were due to respondents as its owners. In the light of that, I do not see the basis of her complaint on these two orders of the lower Court. Appellant’s last and final grouse is with the order of the lower Court denying her claim for damages from respondents for harassing and embarrassing her with their community youths and operatives of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission. Her main complaint is that since the learned trial judge found that she was arrested and detained by E.F.C.C. on the strength of respondents’ complaints, respondents ought to be mulcted in damages. The trial judge in answer to that query explained his action this way:
“I agree completely with Defendant’s counsel that the Claimant’s allegation of harassment is not borne out by the evidence. Evidently, a dispute arose between the Defendants and the Claimant regarding account for the rents collected by the Claimant and when that could not be amicably resolved the Defendants caused their solicitors to write the Claimant demanding that she stopped collecting rents. In Exhibit “K” Defendants’ solicitors directed tenants to stop paying rents the Claimant and to pay same (sic) the solicitors until further notice and in Exhibit, “K1″ Defendant’s lawyers invited the Claimant to a meeting on a date to be picked by her to resolve the question of how much she expended on the property to redeemed. The Defendants also apparently complained to the youth body of Okere community who wrote to tenants and ordered tenants to stop payment of any outstanding rents with “immediate effect pending the resolution of the disputed parties.” These acts do not in my view amount to harassment. The story of Claimant of a thug who introduced himself as a youth of Okere, threatening her over the issue, if true, cannot be properly ascribed to Defendants.
“With regard to the arrest by the E.F.C.C., I think it ought to (sic) stressed that it is the duty of every citizen who suspects on reasonable ground that an offence has been committed to report to the relevant law enforcement agencies and it is the duty of the law enforcement agencies to investigate the report. Consequently, an action for false imprisonment does not lie against a party who makes the report upon which the law enforcement agency on its own initiative arrests a suspect. But where the informant instigated the arrest and detention of the suspect, he may be liable for false imprisonment under the law of tort. See Afribank (Nig.) Plc Vs. Onyima (2004) 2 NWLR (Pt. 854) 654, Fajemirokun Vs. Commercial Bank (Credit Lyonaise) Nig. Ltd (2009) All FWLR (Pt.487) 1, at 6.
“On the Claimant’s own showing she altered a document made in the name of ldundun family to her own name, Mrs. Theresa Udo without the knowledge and consent of the Defendants who were unsure as to the exact amount of money paid to the Claimant by the Delta State Government as compensation for the mud houses. I think in the circumstance, Defendants had reasonable ground to suspect that an offence may have been committed to petition to the E.F.C.C. There is no evidence the Defendants did anything more than writing of the E.F.C.C. to render the Defendants personally liable for the detention of the Claimant by the E.F.C.C. Claimant’s remedy, if any, on this issue is against the E.F.C.C. I hold that the Claimant is entitled to damages.”

That is not only a most painstaking evaluation of the evidence but also an excellent exposition of the law on the subject. See further Okafor v. Abumofuani (2016) 12 NWLR (PT 1525) 117, 140 for the law on this subject.
In summary, this issue is also resolved against appellant and all the orders/findings made/granted or refused by the trial judge on both claim and counter-claim of parties are hereby upheld.

In conclusion, this appeal lacks merits and is hereby dismissed in its entirety.
Parties are to bear their costs.

JOSEPH OLUBUNMI KAYODE OYEWOLE, J.C.A.: I have had the privilege of reading the draft of the lead judgment just delivered herein by my learned brother BOLOUKUROMO MOSES UGO, JCA.

I equally agree that the findings of the trial Court accord with the evidence adduced by the parties and the position of the law.

For the more detailed reasoning in the lead judgment, I also find no merit in this appeal and I accordingly dismiss it.

I adopt the consequential orders in the lead judgment as mine.

SYBIL NWAKA GBAGI, J.C.A.: I was privileged to have read before now the lead judgment rendered by my learned brother, BOLOUKUROMO MOSES UGO, JCA. I entirely agree with his Lordship’s conclusions. I accept that this appeal lacks merit and is hereby dismissed in its entirety.