OBONN EKPENYONG EFFIOM OKON VS DENO ENUO EYON AKOM EYO & 4 ORS
May 28, 2025CHIEF SUNDAY EYO OKON OBONG VS PATRICK LEO EDET & ANOR
May 28, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (2008) Legalpedia (CA) 17401
In the Court of Appeal
Wed Dec 10, 2008
Suit Number: CA/C/32/2008
CORAM
PARTIES
ADIAHA EMMANUEL ESSIEN APPELLANTS
NATHAN ESSIEN ETUKUDO RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The Respondent as the Plaintiff at the court below, instituted proceedings against the present Appellant, who was then defendant claiming a declaration that the plaintiff is entitled to the statutory Right of Occupancy of the piece or parcel of land which was in dispute and a perpetual injunction restraining the defendant by herself, agents, servants, privies and/or her successors in title from ejecting him from the house/land in dispute. The Defendant /Appellant counter claimed on the grounds that he is the owner and in possession of the land as covered by the Certificate of Occupancy. The trial judge entered judgment for the Plaintiff/Respondent, hence this appeal by the Defendant/ Appellant.
HELD
Appeal disallowed
ISSUES
Whether the learned trial Judge was right to have partitioned or shared the subject matter in dispute when neither party prayed for partitioning or sharingWhether the learned trial Judge was right in canceling the defendant’s Certificate of Occupancy on ground that the defendant did not build on the land with the consent of the plaintiffWhether the plaintiff having stood by and watch the defendant developed the property, the subject matter hereof is not estopped from laying claim to ownership of same
RATIONES DECIDENDI
RULES OF COURT-CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE THE COURT CAN DETRACT FROM COMPLIANCE WITH THE RULES OF COURT
“It should be noted that rules of court are made for the courts and not the court for the rules. If compliance with the Rules of Court will cause injustice or miscarriage of justice in the case, the court will, in its choice of doing substantial justice, detract or move away from the rules of court.” PER JEAN OMOKRI JCA
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE- IMPORTANCE OF
“Documentary evidence is a veritable aid for assessing oral testimony.” PER JEAN OMOKRI JCA
ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION-NEED TO ARISE FROM GROUNDS OF APPEAL
“It is settled law that issues for determination in appeal must arise from the ground or grounds of appeal”. PER JEAN OMOKRI JCA
RELIEFS-GRANT OF – EXCEPTIONS TO THE RULE
“As an exception to the general rule, it is permissible to grant to a plaintiff what he has not specifically claimed in his writ if the subsequent order of court shows that:
“(a) the order arose from the evidence adduced in courts; and
(b) the order is incidental to the claim made.” PER JEAN OMOKRI JCA
TITLE TO LAND-WHETHER THE PRODUCTION OF A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY IS SUFFICIENT TO DISCHARGE ONUS OF PROOF
“The mere production of the Certificate of Occupancy alone is not sufficient to discharge the onus on the defendant to prove the title she claims.” PER JEAN OMOKRI JCA
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE-STATUS OF A DOCUMENT TENDERED IN COURT -WHETHER ORAL EVIDENCE CAN BE ALLOWED TO CONTRADICT THE CONTENTS THEREOF
“A document tendered in court is the best proof of the contents of such document and oral evidence will not be allowed to discredit or contradict the contents thereof except in cases where fraud is pleaded.” PER JEAN OMOKRI JCA
ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION-NEED TO BE DISTILLED FROM THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL-WHERE NOT SO FORMULATED-EFFECT OF
“Issues for determination in an appeal are framed or distilled from the grounds of appeal before the court. Where issues raised are not formulated from any ground of appeal, an appellate court must discountenance such issue and strike it out.” PER JEAN OMOKRI JCA
RELIEFS-DUTY OF COURT THERETO- WHETHER CAN GRANT TO A PARTY A RELIEF NOT CLAIMED
“Generally, a court of law must not grant to a party a relief which he has not claimed or sought or to grant a relief which is more than he claims. Indeed, it is not the function of a court to make a gratuitous award.” PER JEAN OMOKRI JCA
GROUND OF APPEAL- NEED TO ARISE FROM THE DECISION APPEALED AGAINST
“A ground of appeal must arise from the decision appealed against and when it does not it is incompetent and must be struck out.” PER JEAN OMOKRI JCA
FAMILY LAND-WHERE NOT PARTITIONED-STATUS OF
“It is settled law that where a family land is not partitioned, it is vested on the family as a whole and any disposition must receive the blessings of the family members, particularly the Family Head and the principal members of the family.” PER JEAN OMOKRI JCA
GROUNDS OF APPEAL- BASIS OF-ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION-HOW DERIVED
“Grounds of appeal must be base on the decision of a court and issues for determination must arise from a competent ground of appeal.” PER JEAN OMOKRI JCA
CASES CITED
Abiola vs. Olawoye (2006) 13 NWLR (Pt.996) 1Adejumo vs. State (2006) 9 NWLR (Pt. 986) 627Ademola vs. Sodipo (1989) 5 NWLR (Pt. 121) 326; Aiki vs. Idowu (2006) 9 NWLR (Pt. 984) 47 at 65Akapo vs. Hakeem-Habeeb (1992) 6 NWLR (Pt. 248) 297Atanda vs. Lakanmi (1974) 3 SC 107;A-G, Federation vs. ANPP (2003) 15 NWLR (Pt. 844) 600 at 645Anukoti vs. Ekuonyeso (1973) 1 SC 37 at 47 Audu vs. State (2003) FWLR (Pt. 53) 325 at 359Auruba vs. E. C. B. Ltd. (2005) 3 NWLR (Pt. 911) 152Chike vs. F. H. A. (1999) 10 NWLR (Pt. 624) 574Chinweze vs. Mazi (1989) 1 NWLR (Pt. 97) 254 at 258 Dedo vs. Solanke (2006) 9 NWLR (Pt. 986) 447 at 472Effiong vs. Ebong (2006) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1010) 709Ekeocha vs. Osuji (2002) FWLR (Pt. 105) 774 at 779Ekpendu vs. Erika (1959) 4 FSC 79Ekpenyong VS. Nyong (1975) 2 SC 71Eneoli vs. Oraekwe (2006) 1 NWLR (Pt. 961) 342Ezennah vs. Attah (2004) All FWLR (Pt. 202) 1858 at 1884F. B. N. vs. Akinyosoye (2005) 5 NWLR (Pt. 918) 340Gbadamosi vs. Hite (1993) 2 NWLR (Pt. 273) 113;God’s Little Tannery v S.Nwaigbo (2005) 7 NWLR (Pt. 924) 298 at 317Ibrahim v. Osunde (2003) 2 NWLR(Pt. 804) 241.Intermercosa (Nig.) Ltd. vs. Anammco (2005) 1 NWLR (Pt. 907)371 at 382 – 383Lawson vs. Ajibulu (1997) 51 LRCN 1549 Lewis vs. Bankole (1909) 1 NLR 82Ogbaji VS. Arewa Textile (2000) FWLR (Pt. 24) 1493 at 1520 -1521Ogboru vs. Ibora (2006) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1009) 542Okelola vs. Boyle (1989) 6 NWLR (Pt. 119) 46Okoiko vs. Esedalue (1974) NMLR 337Okolie vs. Marinho (2006) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1002) 316 Oyede vs. Olusesi (2005) 16 NWLR (Pt. 951) 341 at 362 – 363; Oyediran vs. Amoo (1950) 1 All NLR 313Sekoni vs. UTC (Nig.) Plc. (2006) 8 NWLR (Pt. 982) 283Sosanya vs. Onadeko (2005) 8 NWLR (Pt. 926) 185 at 215 – 216,UNIC vs. U. C. I. C. Ltd. (1993) 3 NWLR (Pt. 593) 17?
STATUTES REFERRED TO
Evidence Act
