CORAM

---

Uwani Musa Abba Aji – Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Ibrahim Mohammed Musa Saulawa – Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Emmanuel Akomaye Agim – Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Chidi Nwaoma Uwa – Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Obande Festus Ogbuinya – Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria

---

PARTIES

---

1. ABIODUN AGBETU

2. IJOPIN AGBETU

APPELLANTS

---

1. VENERABLE EMMANUEL OLORUNWA AKINBOYO

2. CHIEF OLADAPO AKINTAJUWA RESPONDENTS

---

AREA(S) OF LAW

---

LAND LAW, TRADITIONAL EVIDENCE, CUSTOMARY LAW, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE, EVIDENCE LAW, BURDEN OF PROOF, FINAL ADDRESSES, MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE, CONCURRENT FINDINGS, CONTRADICTIONS IN EVIDENCE, FAMILY LAND, STATUTORY RIGHT OF OCCUPANCY

 

---

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Respondents claimed that their ancestor, Omojuwa, migrated from Ile-Ife over 600 years ago and eventually settled at Moribodo (Ode-Osoro). Omojuwa had three children: Jagbedo, Monogbe, and Jibulu. Jibulu had four children including Odofin-Ofilo, through whom the Respondents traced their ancestry. Jibulu’s children left Moribodo and settled at various camps, with Odofin-Ofilo living at Agirifon with his descendants.

The Respondents alleged that members of the Appellants’ Liliken family approached the Odofin-Ofilo family requesting parcels of land to build residential houses. Their request was granted with restrictions to residential buildings only – no farming or alienation permitted. Contrary to these conditions, the Appellants allegedly went onto the Respondents’ farmland, bulldozed it, and destroyed economic crops.

The Respondents sought declarations of entitlement to statutory right of occupancy over the land at Agirifon, N50,000 general damages for trespass, and perpetual injunction restraining further trespass. The Appellants filed a counter-claim seeking declaration that the land belonged to the Liliken family from time immemorial and perpetual injunctions.

The Appellants claimed that Omojuwa was also their ancestor but that Jibulu had only three children (Ehinmoronren, Seja, and Lubokun), not four as claimed by Respondents. They traced their ancestry through Lubokun, who begat Liliken Omojuwara, who brought the Liliken family to settle at Agirifon in 1920.

At trial, when the matter was adjourned for final addresses, the Appellants’ counsel requested further adjournment due to emotional imbalance from his cousin’s death. The trial judge refused the adjournment and dispensed with both parties’ final addresses before delivering judgment in favour of the Respondents. The Court of Appeal affirmed this decision, holding no miscarriage of justice occurred and that the Respondents’ traditional evidence was credible and sufficient.

 

---

HELD

---

1. The appeal was dismissed and the Court of Appeal’s judgment was affirmed.

2. The Court held that addresses of counsel are designed to assist the Court but where facts are straightforward, the trial Court can dispense with final addresses.

3. Section 294(5) of the Constitution provides a caveat that a decision shall not be set aside solely for non-compliance with Section 294(1) unless the complainant suffered a miscarriage of justice.

4. The Appellants failed to demonstrate that they suffered a miscarriage of justice when both parties’ final addresses were dispensed with equally.

5. The Court found no material contradictions in the Respondents’ traditional evidence but only minor discrepancies that did not affect credibility.

6. The Respondents established a better title through traditional evidence showing their ancestor Odofin-Ofilo was a descendant of Jibulu, son of their common ancestor Omojuwa.

7. The Court upheld concurrent findings of fact from two lower courts, noting Appellants failed to show perversity or exceptional circumstances warranting interference.

8. Costs of N2,000,000 was awarded in favour of the Respondents against the Appellants.

 

---

ISSUES

---

1. **Whether the Court of Appeal was right to have dismissed the Appellants’ appeal on the ground that no miscarriage of justice was occasioned by the trial Court’s non-compliance with Section 294(1) of the 1999 Constitution as relates to delivery of final addresses by parties before judgment?**

2. **Whether the Court of Appeal was right to have held that the pleadings and evidence of the Respondents were credible and sufficient to entitle them to the grant of the reliefs sought at the trial Court?**

 

---

RATIONES DECIDENDI

---

FINAL ADDRESSES – DESIGNED TO ASSIST COURT BUT DISPENSABLE

---

“It is settled law that address of counsel is designed to assist the Court. It is the closing submissions of counsel which outlines counsel’s final argument, summarizing the evidence, address legal issues, and present the case of learned counsel in a bid to persuade the Court to rule in his favour. Final addresses are a summary of the case of the parties, an overview of what has been placed before the Court, but it is not evidence that would have effect on the evaluation of same that would assist the Court to arrive at a decision one way or the other.” – Per CHIDI NWAOMA UWA, JSC

 

---

ADDRESS NOT EVIDENCE – CANNOT REPLACE OR ELEVATE TO EVIDENCE STATUS

---

“It is crucial to stress that an address is not evidence and can neither replace evidence nor can it be elevated to the status of evidence because of its quality. Where facts are straightforward, the trial Court can dispense with final addresses.” – Per CHIDI NWAOMA UWA, JSC

 

---

SECTION 294(5) CAVEAT – MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE MUST BE ESTABLISHED

---

“The decision of a Court shall not be set aside or treated as a nullity solely on the ground of non-compliance with the provisions of subsection (1) of this section unless the Court exercising jurisdiction by way of appeal or review of that decision is satisfied that the party complaining has suffered a miscarriage of justice by reason thereof.” – Per CHIDI NWAOMA UWA, JSC (quoting Section 294(5) Constitution)

 

---

DEFINITION OF MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE

---

“A miscarriage of justice essentially means failure on the part of the Court to do justice. It is justice misplaced, misappreciated or misappropriated. For an outcome of a judicial proceeding to be termed a miscarriage of justice, it must have been unjust, unfair or improper.” – Per CHIDI NWAOMA UWA, JSC

 

---

EQUAL DISPENSATION OF ADDRESSES – NO PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT

---

“Rightly or wrongly, the addresses of both parties were dispensed with, thus no party was placed in a better position than the other. Furthermore, learned counsel failed to demonstrate in what way the decision would have been different had the Court the benefit of the final addresses of counsel.” – Per CHIDI NWAOMA UWA, JSC (quoting Court of Appeal)

 

---

DISTINCTION BETWEEN CONTRADICTION AND DISCREPANCY

---

“A piece of evidence will be said to be contradictory to another where it affirms or asserts the opposite of that other piece of evidence. For two pieces of evidence to be said to be contradictory, there must be material contradictions that will go to an issue of fact. The two pieces of evidence must, by their nature, be patently inconsistent and be mutually repugnant or exclusive of each other.” – Per CHIDI NWAOMA UWA, JSC (quoting Jauro, JSC)

---

DISCREPANCY IN EVIDENCE – MINOR VARIATIONS AS BADGE OF TRUTH

---

“Two witnesses who saw the same incident are not bound to describe it in the same way. There is bound to be slight differences in their accounts of what happened. When their stories appear to be very similar, the chances are that those were tutored and tailored witnesses. Minor variations in testimony seem to be a badge of truth.” – Per CHIDI NWAOMA UWA, JSC (quoting Oputa, JSC)

 

---

COMPLEMENTARY RATHER THAN CONTRADICTORY EVIDENCE

---

“Having regard to the pleadings referred to earlier, I am of the view that there is no contradiction in the evidence of these two witnesses regarding the founding of the land. This is because although both parties are descendants of Omojuwa, it is pleaded that Jibulu, one of his sons left Moribodo, the original settlement, and settled at Agirifon. Jibulu begat Odofin Ofilo, the respondents’ ancestor.” – Per CHIDI NWAOMA UWA, JSC (quoting Court of Appeal)

 

---

BOUNDAY WITNESS LIMITATIONS – NOT CONVERSANT WITH FAMILY HISTORY:

---

“PW8 testified as boundary man. He did not testify as a person conversant with the respondents’ family history. He stated that he knows the Plaintiffs as farmers on Agirifon land at Ilutitun and that the Osoromi River separates their land from his. It cannot be construed as an admission against interest if the witness says he does not know the family the plaintiffs came from or who owns Agirifon.” – Per CHIDI NWAOMA UWA, JSC (quoting Court of Appeal)

 

---

ESTABLISHMENT OF BETTER TITLE THROUGH TRADITIONAL EVIDENCE

---

“Once the Court was satisfied that the traditional history pleaded and proved by the respondents was more probable and believable than that of the appellants, the respondents had effectively established their claim for a declaration of title in their favour.” – Per CHIDI NWAOMA UWA, JSC (quoting Court of Appeal)

 

---

ASSESSMENT OF TRADITIONAL EVIDENCE CREDIBILIT

---

“Having regard to the totality of the evidence before the Court, I hold that there were no material inconsistencies in the traditional evidence led by the Respondents. Their evidence was credible and sufficient to sustain the claim for a declaration of title in their favour.” – Per CHIDI NWAOMA UWA, JSC (quoting Court of Appeal)

 

---

CONCURRENT FINDINGS – NON-INTERFERENCE PRINCIPLE

---

“The Appellants herein have been unable to show how the concurrent findings of the two Courts were perverse, not based on available evidence or occasioned a miscarriage of justice; which are the only reasons that would require upsetting the concurrent findings of the two lower Courts by this Court.” – Per CHIDI NWAOMA UWA, JSC

 

---

EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES FOR INTERFERENCE WITH CONCURRENT FINDINGS

---

“As it pertains to the concurrent findings of two lower Courts, an appellate Court will not interfere unless there be exceptional circumstances to justify such interference. Nor would there be interference with the Judgment of two lower Courts unless there are substantial errors in law or procedure leading to miscarriage of justice.” – Per UWANI MUSA ABBA AJI, JSC (quoting Galadima, JSC)

 

---

CASES CITED

---

---

STATUTES REFERRED TO

---

• Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) – Sections 294(1) and 294(5)

• Evidence Act 2011 – Section 136(1)

 

---

OTHER CITATIONS

---

---

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT