LawCare Nigeria

Nigeria Legal Information & Law Reports

WOPARA & ORS v. OWHONDA-WOPARA (2021)

WOPARA & ORS v. OWHONDA-WOPARA

(2021)LCN/15880(CA)

In The Court Of Appeal

(PORT HARCOURT JUDICIAL DIVISION)

On Thursday, July 08, 2021

CA/PH/391/2019

Before Our Lordships:

Tani Yusuf Hassan Justice of the Court of Appeal

Paul Obi Elechi Justice of the Court of Appeal

Gabriel Omoniyi Kolawole Justice of the Court of Appeal

Between

1. REV. DR. CHITURU WOPARA 2. DAME CHINYERE N. WORLU 3. DAME OKECHUKWU OWHONDA (For Themselves And As Representing The Wives And Children Of Late Chief Isreal J. Owhonda Wopara Except The 1st Defendant) APPELANT(S)

And

CHIEF TEMPLE W. OWHONDA-WOPARA RESPONDENT(S)

 

RATIO

THE POSITION OF LAW ON PROVING THE TRANSFER OF LAND UNDER CUSTOMARY LAW
From what was re-produced above the intention of the executor has been clearly reflected therein that the grant was made in accordance with the Ikwerre Native Law and Custom, moreso the grantor indicated that the grant is without any amendment. In order to prove the transfer of land under customary law, certain facts must be established. It must be pleaded and proved that the grant was made in the presence of witnesses who saw the actual handing over of the property. The names of the person who witnessed the transfer and handing over must be pleaded. See Soronnadi Vs Durugo (2019) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1668) 281; Cole Vs Folami (1956) SCNLR 180 and Folarin Vs Durojaiye (1988)1 NWLR (Pt. 70) 350 at 365 paragraph D – E. Although there was a column for witness in exhibit “A” but there is no name or signature of any witness that witnessed the grant. PER HASSAN, J.C.A.

WHETHER OR NOT THE APPELLATE COURT CAN INTERFERE WITH THE PRIMARY DUTY OF THE TRIAL COURT IN APPRAISING ORAL EVIDENCE

Although the appraisal of oral evidence and ascription of probative value to such evidence is the primary duty of the trial Court, the Court of Appeal can only interfere where the trial Court has drawn wrong conclusion from accepted or proved facts. See Kwanni Vs Marafa (2017) 8 NWLR (Pt.1566) 1 at 6; Adeye Vs Adesanya (2001) 6 NWLR (Pt.708)1; Oshiyemi Vs Akinte (1995)2 NWLR (Pt.379) 555 and Isma’il Vs F.R.N (2020) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1707)85. In the instant case, the trial Court did justice to the appraisal of evidence.

​A finding of fact or decision is said to be perverse when it runs counter to the pleadings and evidence on record or where the Court has taken into account irrelevant matter or shut its eyes to the obvious and by its nature the findings or decision occasioned a miscarriage of justice. See Mamonu Vs Dikat (2019) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1672) 495 at 504; Odom V PDP (2015) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1456) 527 and Olaniyan Vs Fatoki (2013) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1387) 477. It is not the situation in the instant case. PER HASSAN, J.C.A.

TANI YUSUF HASSAN, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): This is an appeal against the Judgment of High Court of Rivers State, Port Harcourt delivered on the 18th of March, 2019 in suit No. PHC/566/2011, by Honourable Justice Boma G. Diepiri.

​The Appellants as Claimants at the lower Court instituted an action by a writ of summons and Statement of Claim against the respondent and Senator John Mbata as defendants claiming as follows:
1. A declaration that the landed properties of Late Chief Isreal Jonah Owhonda Wopara having been shared by him among his wives and children during his life-time cannot be taken over for sole use or re-shared by the 1st defendant or any other person.
2. A declaration that the Deed of Grant dated the 21st day June, 1981 and executed by late Chief Isreal Jonah Owhonda Wopara is valid and binding on the 1st Defendant and all other beneficiaries under the said deed.
3. A declaration that the 1st defendant’s seizure and/or appropriation of all the properties of late Chief Isreal Jonah Owhonda Wopara for his personal use and enjoyment is wrongful and invalid.
4. An Order that the sale or purported sale or lease by the 1st Defendant of the properties or any of the properties granted to the Claimants in the Deed of Grant dated the 21st day of June, 1981 and executed by Chief Isreal Jonah Owhonda Wopara to the 2nd defendant or any other person is null and void.
5. An Order directing the defendant to render account of his use, rental properties under the aforesaid Deed of Grant.
6. A perpetual injunction restraining the 1st defendant by himself, servants agents, privies, assigns or otherwise howsoever from selling, leasing, renting or howsoever dealing with the properties of the claimants as granted or disposed to them under the Deed of Grant executed by Chief Isreal Jonah Owhonda Wopara on the 21st day of June, 1981.
7. The sum of N100 Million representing general damages against the 1st defendant for the damage and inconveniences caused the claimants by the wrongful and illegal dealing by the 1st defendant in the properties of the claimants as granted in the said Deed of Grant.

​The Claimants on the 9th of November, 2012 filed a Notice of discontinuance against the 2nd defendant Senator John Mbata.

In defence of the claim the defendant/respondent as claimant by an Amended Statement of Defence dated 26th April, 2016 and filed on 27th April, 2016, Counter Claims against the Claimants/Appellants as defendants jointly and severally as follows:
a. A declaration that the Claimant is entitled to the statutory right of occupancy over and in respect of the following developed properties namely.
i. The property situate at and municipally described as No. 75A (erroneously called No. 75 B by Defendants) Old Aba Road, Rumuobiokani, Port Harcourt excepting the one room and premises thereto.
ii. The property together with its appurtenances and surrounding premises thereto situate at and municipally described as No. 84 Old Aba Road, Rumuobiokani, Port Harcourt.
iii. The property together with its appurtenances and surrounding premises thereto situate at and municipally described as No. 1 Ekere Street (erroneously described as uncompleted building by the Defendants) at Rumuobiokani, Port Harcourt.
b. A declaration that the assignment of the piece or parcel of land situate at and known as Ohia-Apamini -Ekere Street, Rumuobiokani in Obio/Akpor Local Government of Rivers State by the Claimant to Senator John Mbata is regularly and validly done.
c. A declaration that as the grantee of the developed property together with its appurtenances and premises thereto situated at and municipally described as No. 75B (erroneously called No 75A by Defendants) Old Aba Road, Rumuobiokani, in Obio/Akpor Local Government Area of Rivers State, the Claimant is the Deemed holder of a statutory Right of Occupancy over the said property.
d. The sum of N5,000,000.00 (Five Million Naira) only being general damages against the defendants for disturbance, inconvenience and loss caused to the claimant by the wrongful and unlawful interference of the defendants to the claimant’s right to the enjoyment and possession of his properties aforesaid.
e. A perpetual injunction restraining the defendants by themselves, their servants, agents, privies, assigns or otherwise howsoever from disturbing or interfering or continuing to disturb or interfere with the claimant’s right to peaceful and quiet enjoyment of his properties afore mentioned.

​The appellants called one witness in proof of their case and the respondent also called one witness in defence and counter claim. Exhibits were tendered at trial. At the conclusion of trial both the claimants’ case and defendant/counter-claim were dismissed.

Aggrieved with the Judgment the appellants appealed to this Court. The Notice of Appeal dated and filed on the 17th of June, 2019 contained three grounds with their particulars and the reliefs sought.

The appellants’ brief was dated and filed on the 21st of August, 2019. The Brief settled by Isah Seidu Esq. has a sole issue for determination thus:
1. “Whether having regards to the evidence led at the Court below (documentary or oral), the Judgment of the Court below dismissing the suit of the Appellants is not rooted in perversity and liable to the sole fate of being upturned in favour of the Appellants without much ado.”(Grounds 1,2 and 3)

The Appellants’ reply brief was dated and filed on the 24th of September, 2019. Learned counsel for the appellants adopted the briefs and urged the Court to allow the appeal and set aside the judgment of the trial Court.

​The respondent’s brief dated 27th day of August, 2019 was filed on the 11th of September, 2019. Learned counsel for the respondent E.O. Chinda Esq. also identified a sole issue for determination which reads:
“Whether having regards to the pleadings and evidence led at the trial, the learned trial Judge was right in dismissing the Claims of the appellants having found that Exhibit “A” was the fulcrum of their case and that same was not only of doubtful origin but was also not a genuine document.” (Grounds 1, 2 and 3).

Learned Counsel adopted the brief and urged the Court to dismiss the appeal.
I adopt the appellants’ issue in determining the appeal.

ISSUE ONE.
“Whether having regards to the evidence led at the Court below (documentary or oral), the Judgment of the Court below dismissing the suit of the Appellants is not rooted in perversity and liable to the sole fate of being upturned in favour of the Appellants without much ado.”

​Learned counsel for the appellants in arguing this issue contended that having regard to the law and the evidence led at the Court below both oral and documentary, they are entitled to judgment, in their favour. That the trial Court’s dismissal of their claim is rooted in perversity. Counsel referred to Exhibit “A”, the Deed of Grant made on the 21st day of June, 1981 where the appellants and the respondent’s father made a grant, gift inter vivos under English law of some of his properties to them during his life time. It is his contention that the judgment of the lower Court is perverse having construed exhibit “A” as evidence of partition under Native law and customs as against the English law which it represents. He relied on this submission on the cases of MTN (Nig.) Comm. Ltd Vs Corporate Comm. Inv Ltd. (2019) 9 NWLR (Pt.1678) 427 at 454 paragraph E – F; Olubodun & Ors Vs Lawal & Anor Vol. 2 LLAC 363 at 368 paragraph F; Yadis (Nig.) Limited Vs Great Nig. Ins. Co Ltd (2007) 14 NWLR (Pt.1055) 584 and SPDC Vs Ajuwa (2015) 14 NWLR (Pt.1480) 403 at 481 paragraphs E-F among others.

​Relying on the case of Imah Vs Okogbe (1993) 9 NWLR (Pt.316) 173, it is submitted that in order to dispute documentary evidence a party needs to do so by another documentary evidence. That Court cannot vary, alter, add to, subtract from or modify the intention of the executor of an instrument. 

The Court was referred to A.G. Cross River Vs. A.G. Federation (2012) All FWLR (Pt.646) at 408.

Submitting further is that exhibit “A” under English law does not require attestation nor witnesses to be complete once executed and accepted contrary to the position of the Court below. That exhibit “A” is complete in itself without more and ought to have been construed as such in line with the position of the Supreme Court in Anyaegbunam Vs Osaka (2000) 5 NWLR (Pt. 657) 400 paragraphs C – D.

It is also submitted on behalf of the appellants that the respondent was unable to prove the alleged forgery of the signature in Exhibit “A”. The Court was referred to Ilori Vs Ishola (Nee Raji) 2018 10 SCM 170 at 195 paragraphs E – F.

That exhibit “C” tendered by the respondent given credence to Exhibit “A” and same ought to be construed as a Deed of Grant as intended not otherwise.

​Learned counsel argued that the long possession claimed by the respondent without more cannot constitute evidence of absolute gift. He referred to Isiba & Ors Vs Hanson & Anor (1967) NSCC Vol. 5 page 3. Relying on the case of Sogunro Vs Yeku (2017) 9 NWLR (Pt.1570)290 at 322 paragraphs D E, the Court is called upon to interfere and re-evaluate the evidence on record in view of the trial Court’s judgment which contrasts sharply the admitted documentary exhibits particularly exhibit “A” tendered by the respondent. Also referred are Are & Anor Vs Ipaye & Ors Vol. 6 L.L.A.C. 173 at 182 – 183; Mamman Vs Salaudeen (2005) 12 SCM 260 at 279 and F.R.N. Vs Barminas (2017) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1588) 177 at 204 paragraph H. to submit that a perverse finding of fact cannot in law sustain any Judgment.
We are urged to allow the appeal.

​On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submitted in response that the trial Court rightly found exhibit “A” as the fulcrum of the Claimants’ entire case. That a calm view of some paragraphs of the appellants pleadings, the said averments will reveal the appellants’ assertion that their late father Chief I.J.O Wopara, also the father of the respondent shared his properties in his life time on the 21st of June, 1981, as evidenced by Deed of Grant which they tendered as exhibit “A”.  That a perusal of the reliefs claimed by the appellants were those set out in Exhibit “A” the Deed of Grant.

Counsel argued that the trial Court had a duty to inquire whether or not exhibit “A” passed the test of a valid and authentic documents with which the appellants could establish their claim of ownership by grant. That although the law recognizes the fact that production of an instrument of grant is one of the ways of proving title to land, the law makes it clear that such instrument of grant must be valid and genuine. The Court was referred to Romaine Vs Romaine (1992) 4 NWLR (Pt.238) 650 at 662 paragraphs D – G and Ojibah Vs Ojibah (1991) 5 NWLR (pt.191) 310 F, to submit that a document that is of doubtful origin and which is not shown to be genuine and legal is of no forensic value and no rights can be hoisted upon it.

​Learned counsel for the respondent submitted further that the findings of the learned trial Judge with regard to exhibit “A” was that the said exhibit was not valid and authentic or genuine document to pass title of the properties therein to the appellants, in which case the trial Court was right in dismissing the claims of the appellants which was rested in exhibit “A”.

With regard for the submission of the appellants’ counsel that the decision of the lower Court is perverse in construing exhibit “A” as partition under Native Law and customs, counsel submitted that it is the law, in construing a document, a judge should construe the document as a whole in order to discern the real purport and intendment of the document. He relied on this submission in the case of Mobil Prod. (Nig.) Unlimited Vs Umenweke (2007) 9 NWLR (pt.773) 543 at 557 paragraphs C – D.

Relying on the case of B.I.B.W.A Ltd Vs. Unakalamba (1998) 9 NWLR (Pt.565) 245 at 268 paragraph 1, it is submitted that a document written in simple English is free from any ambiguity, the Court will interpret such document in their ordinary and natural meaning in the context in which it is written. That the trial Court gave effect to the ordinary and natural meaning of exhibit “A”.
Referring to the said exhibit “A” learned counsel for the respondent submitted that a dispassionate consideration of Exhibit “A” reveals that the sharing of the properties of Late Chief I.J.O Wopara to his children including the respondent as allegedly done by him, was done under native law and custom of Ikwerre people as applicable to Rumuobiokani people. That the appellants having introduced exhibit “A”, the learned trial judge was legally bound to construe it for what it was, a transaction under native law and custom.

Submitting further, it is conceded that to dispute documentary evidence a party needs to do so by another, documentary evidence, but in the instant case, the Respondent challenged the genuineness and authenticity of Appellants’ Primary document namely exhibits “A” and “B”. That the respondent did not need to introduce another document to establish exhibits “A” and “B”, as the burden is on the Appellants to establish that exhibits “A” and “B” are genuine and authentic.

​Referring to exhibits “D” and “H” tendered by the respondent, it is submitted that the exhibits established that exhibits “A” and “B” tendered by the Appellants are not genuine and authentic.

That Exhibit “D” is the call to Bar certificate of respondent showing that he became a lawyer in 1982 and referring to him as lawyer in Exhibits “A” and “B” which came into being in 1981 can only amount to a forgery. While exhibit “H” is a letter written to the respondent by the 1st Appellants dated 20/3/2009. Counsel argued that a proper construction of the said exhibit “H” will show that exhibits “A” and “B” which stated that the properties of the late father of the parties were shared by him, are documents of doubtful origin which are also not genuine and authentic.

Responding to the appellants’ submission that a Court cannot alter, vary, add or subtract from or modify the intention of an executor of an instrument, it is submitted that where a party relies on a document to support his case, a trial Judge has power under the law to examine the document and draw necessary inference from such a document. The Court was referred to Lasisi Vs State (2013) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1358) 74 at 95 – 96 H – B.

That the trial Court did not re-write, add or alter exhibit “A” as argued by the appellants’ counsel but examined the entire document to come to a conclusion that exhibit “A” was made under native law and custom of Ikwerre people and not under English law as contemplated by the Appellants’ counsel.

Reference to the appellants’ submission that the respondent has failed to prove the alleged forgery of Exhibit “A”, counsel submitted that the appellants’ counsel misunderstood the point as it was not the case of the respondent that the signature in exhibit “A” was forged. That it was contended that a document such as Exhibit “A” could be a forgery even though it may bear a true and proper signature of its maker. Relying on Uzoka Vs F.R.N. (2010)2 NWLR (Pt.1177) 118 at 146 paragraph D, it is submitted that when a person makes a false document or writing, knowing it to be false and with the intention it may be used or acted upon as genuine, he commits forgery. That the burden is on the appellants to prove their case whether or not the defence put forward by the respondent was weak or strong.

He referred to Ahmed Vs Minister of Internal Affairs (2002) 15 NWLR (Pt.799) 239 at 270 paragraph C – D and Ilori & Ors Vs Ishola (Supra).

It is also the submission of the respondent’s counsel that contrary to the contention of the appellants’ counsel that exhibit “C” gives credence to exhibit “A” and same ought to be construed as a Deed of Grant, counsel submitted that Exhibit “C” and “H” which are one and the same document, a letter which the 1st appellant wrote to the respondent do not lend any credence to Exhibit “A” but they go to show the contrary to the erroneous impression created by exhibit “A”. That it is strange to contend that exhibit “C” should be construed as Deed of Grant.

It is finally submitted that the appellants’ submission on long possession as claimed by the respondent is misconceived, as it is not the respondent’s case that gave rise to this appeal but the appellants’ case. The Court is urged to discountenance this argument of the appellants on the authority of Omaliko Vs Awachie (2002) 12 NWLR (Pt.780) 1 at 23 paragraph A. The Court is urged to resolve the issue in favour of the respondent and against the appellants.

The Appellants’ reply brief is an attack on the issue formulated by the respondent. A reply brief is to deal with a new issue of law or argument raised in the Respondent’s brief which was not covered by the appellants’ brief of argument. A reply brief is filed only in response to new argument of the Respondent on law that has newly been raised by the respondent. See N.R.M.A & F.C Vs Johnson (2019) 2 NWLR (Pt.1656) 247 at 254 and Yanaty Petrochemical Ltd Vs EFCC (2018)5 NWLR (Pt.1611). In the instant case, the reply brief is an attack on the issue formulated by the respondent. Reply Brief is not a forum for attacking an issue formulated for determination. The reply brief is discountenanced.

​In arguing this sole issue, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that exhibit “A” the Deed of Grant made on the 21st day of June, 1981 under English law by their late father of some of his properties to the appellants and the respondent during his life time was wrongly construed by the trial Court.

That the trial judge having construed exhibit “A” as evidence of partitioning under Native Law and Custom against the English law it represents, his judgment is perverse.

The learned trial judge in his judgment reflected at page 138 of the record had this to say:
“Exhibit “A” was made under the Native Law and Custom of the Ikwerre people as applicable in Rumuobiakani. In it Chief Isreal Jonah Owhonda is said to have shared his properties to his wives and children under their custom. Such sharing under customary law is known as partitioning.”

​There is no dispute as to the facts by both parties that their late father had shared some of his properties to his wives and children. The crux of this appeal is whether the Deed of Grant was made under English law as contended by the Appellants. It will not be out of place to re-produce paragraph 7 of the Deed of Grant which is the relevant paragraph to the submission of the appellants’ counsel. Paragraph 7 reads:
“This Deed of Grant is subject to no amendment by virtue of my position and as the owner/head of my family and in accordance with Ikwerre Native Law and Custom as applicable to Rumuobiakani people which my family forms part of.
I WITNESS WHEREOF – I hereby have hereunto set my hands, seal and sign the day, month and year first above written.
Chief Isreal Jonah
Owhonda Wopara
(Grantor) 21-6-81”

From what was re-produced above the intention of the executor has been clearly reflected therein that the grant was made in accordance with the Ikwerre Native Law and Custom, moreso the grantor indicated that the grant is without any amendment. In order to prove the transfer of land under customary law, certain facts must be established. It must be pleaded and proved that the grant was made in the presence of witnesses who saw the actual handing over of the property. The names of the person who witnessed the transfer and handing over must be pleaded. See Soronnadi Vs Durugo (2019) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1668) 281; Cole Vs Folami (1956) SCNLR 180 and Folarin Vs Durojaiye (1988)1 NWLR (Pt. 70) 350 at 365 paragraph D – E. Although there was a column for witness in exhibit “A” but there is no name or signature of any witness that witnessed the grant.

The record did not also show that the grant was witnessed by anybody as there was no witness called to testify to that effect, as shown in the record.

​The main evidence in support of the Deed of Grant exhibit “A” was given by the 2nd claimant who testified as PW1. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that Exhibit “A” cannot sustain the appellants’ title in view of the fact that the respondent who testified as DW1 challenged the origin of the document. The learned trial judge at pages 138 and 139 of the record considered the evidence of DW1 alongside the evidence of PW1 and found as follows:
“Exhibit “A” is meant to transfer an absolute title to the beneficiary including the parties hereof under Ikwerre native law and custom as applicable to Rumuobiakani. The law is that for any document to be capable of transferring absolute title under native law and custom, it must be effected in the presence of witnesses who actually saw the handing over of the property- See Etajata Vs Ologbo (2007) All FWLR 584 at 630 paragraphs A – B.”
Where a document is challenged by the other party (as in the instant case) the party who is putting forward and relying on the document has a duty to call the attesting witness to testify. See Ojibah Vs Ojibah (1991) 5 NWLR (Pt. 191) 296 at 310 paragraph F. A document that is doubtful in origin and which is not shown to be genuine and legal is of no forensic value. No right can be hoisted upon it. See Ojibah Vs Ojibah (supra) at 312 paragraph D.”
It would have been better appreciated if the claimants have simply come to Court to assert that they are beneficiaries and are entitled to share in the estate of their late father/husband under their custom.”

The trial Court referred to the elements of transfer of land under customary law and found that the claimants/appellants have not been able to establish their case in accordance with the law to be entitled to the reliefs claimed.

​The appellants by maintaining that exhibit “A” was made under English law is calling on the Court to change or alter the intention of the grantor. It is not the duty of the Court to alter the content of a document but to construe it the way it is and give it, its real meaning.

Learned counsel for the appellants made heavy weather in his submission that exhibit “A” the Deed of Grant was not construed by the trial Court as represented which rendered the judgment of the trial Court perverse. This is not correct. In construing a document the words used in the document must be given their ordinary grammatical meaning. By the unambiguous effect of Exhibit “A” the trial Court rightly held that the Deed of Grant Exhibit “A” was executed under Native Law and Custom. The Courts cannot put in words that are not contained therein.

Although the appraisal of oral evidence and ascription of probative value to such evidence is the primary duty of the trial Court, the Court of Appeal can only interfere where the trial Court has drawn wrong conclusion from accepted or proved facts. See Kwanni Vs Marafa (2017) 8 NWLR (Pt.1566) 1 at 6; Adeye Vs Adesanya (2001) 6 NWLR (Pt.708)1; Oshiyemi Vs Akinte (1995)2 NWLR (Pt.379) 555 and Isma’il Vs F.R.N (2020) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1707)85. In the instant case, the trial Court did justice to the appraisal of evidence.

​A finding of fact or decision is said to be perverse when it runs counter to the pleadings and evidence on record or where the Court has taken into account irrelevant matter or shut its eyes to the obvious and by its nature the findings or decision occasioned a miscarriage of justice. See Mamonu Vs Dikat (2019) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1672) 495 at 504; Odom V PDP (2015) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1456) 527 and Olaniyan Vs Fatoki (2013) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1387) 477. It is not the situation in the instant case.

The case of Holloway Vs Jimoh (2020) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1707) 27 at 78 paragraph B – C relied by the Appellants’ counsel, does not support the case of the appellants, as in that case the Deed of conveyance was also challenged by the respondents. The Supreme Court in City property Dev. Ltd Vs A- G Lagos State & Ors (1976) NSCC 43 at 55 held that where a Deed of Conveyance is disputed, the appellants are required to call credible evidence to testify to that effect by establishing the authenticity of the grant. This, the appellants have failed to do in this case.

​A party claiming a declaration of title to land has the burden to prove his case. He is required to do this on the strength of his case and not on the weakness of the defence. See Benjamin Vs Kalio (2018) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1641) 38 and Adesanya Vs Aderonmu (2000) 9 NWLR (Pt. 672) 370.
In the instant case the appellants who were the claimants at the trial Court had the duty to prove their grant. Their failure to do so was fatal to their case.

Where a claimant fails to prove his claim on balance of probabilities, the proper order to make is a dismissal of the claim.

The Judgment of the trial Court in this regard cannot be faulted. The issue is resolved against the appellants. The appeal is unmeritorious and it is dismissed.

The Judgment of the trial Court is affirmed.
Parties to bear their respective costs.

PAUL OBI ELECHI, J.C.A.: I have read in advance the draft copy of the leading judgment delivered by my learned brother Tani Yusuf Hassan, JCA.

I agree with the reasoning and conclusion arrived in holding that the appeal has no merit and deserves to be dismissed.
I too dismiss the appeal accordingly.
Appeal dismissed.

GABRIEL OMONIYI KOLAWOLE, J.C.A.: I was privileged to read in its draft, the lead Judgment just delivered by my Lord, Hon. Justice Tani Yusuf Hassan, JCA in which he found no merit in the sole issue set down for determination of the appeal

I agree with the analysis and resolution of the said issue and with the verdict reached thereat that the appeal lacks merit and was accordingly dismissed.

​I too dismiss the appeal as it is deficient of any merit.

Appearances:

Isah Seidu, Esq. For Appellant(s)

E. O. Chinda. For Respondent(s)