CORAM
SALIHU MODIBBO ALFA BELGORE, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
UWANI MUSA ABBA AJI
EMMANUEL OLAYINKA AYOOLA, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
PARTIES
1. AKANBI AGBEJE2. ALHAJI KADIRI3. DELE OLOWOLAYEMO APPELLANTS
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
This land case was initiated at the Upper Area Court, Omu -Aran. In that court, the plaintiffs, for themselves and as representing the Idofin Odo-Ase Community, claimed against the defendants, as representatives of Irodo family in Idofin Odo-Ase,
HELD
The Appeal was dismissed.
ISSUES
1 – Whether the Court of Appeal was right when it re-evaluated the evidence at the trial Court when the 1st ground of Appeal before it and the issue No. 1 formulated by the Appellants was whether the issue of certainty of land arose at the High Court.2 – Whether the Appeal Court was right in saying that the Respondents counter-claimed at the trial Court.3 – Whether the Appeal Court was right to say that identity of the land was not in dispute but the feature and land marks.4 – Whether the Appeal Court was right to conclude that the alleged contradictions were not material to the main issue.”?
RATIONES DECIDENDI
DUTY OF TRIAL COURT IN ASSESSING EVIDENCE
In this regard it is long settled that the evaluation of evidence and the ascription of probativevalue to such evidence are the primary functions of a court of trial which, heard and assessed the witnesses. Per ANTHONY I. IGUH, J.S.C
ATTITUDE OF APPELLATE COURT TO CONCURRENT FINDINGS OF FACT BY LOWER COURTS
Attention may be drawn finally to the well recognized principle of law that decisions of customary courts or tribunals and these include their counterparts, the Area Courts, on land cases arrived at after a fair hearing on relevant evidence should not be disturbed without very clear proof that they are wrong. Per ANTHONY I. IGUH, J.S.C
DUTY ON TRIAL JUDGE TO BASE HIS DECISION ON THE PLEADING AND EVIDENCE LED AT TRIAL
In this regard it ought to be observed that it is an elementary principle of the determination of disputes between parties that judgment must be confined to the issues raised by the parties and it is not competent for the court suo motu to make a case for either or both of the parties and then proceed to give judgment on the case so formulated contrary to the case of the Parties before it, Per ANTHONY I. IGUH, J.S.C
CASES CITED
Sagay v. New Independence Rubber Co. Ltd. and Another (1977) 5 S.C. 143 Adenuga v. Ilesanmi Press (1991) 5 N.W.L.R. (Part 189) 82 and 98,Commissioner for Works, Benue State and Another v. Devcon Development Consultants Ltd. And Another (1988) 3 N.W.L.R. (Part 83) 407Ochonma v. Ashinrim Unosa (1965) N.WL.R. 321,Anyanwu v. Mbara (1992) 5 N.W.L.R. (Part 242) 386 at 400Ukejianya v. Uchendu (1950) 13 W.A.C.A. 45 at 46Udeze v. Chidebe (1990) 1 N.W.L.R. (Part 125) 141Kwansa Efi v. Enyinful 14 W.A.C.A. 424
STATUTES REFERRED TO
NONE