BAYELSA STATE CAPITAL CITY DVELOPMENT AUTHORITY V. ECOBANK PLC.
March 19, 2025TAYLOR WOODROW NIG. LTD V. H.R.M OBA ABDUL FATAI AREMU AROMIRE
March 19, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (2023-02) Legalpedia 63777 (CA)
In the Court of Appeal
Holden at Lagos
Mon Feb 20, 2023
Suit Number: CA/L/1021/2016
CORAM
OBANDE FESTUS OGBUINYA
FATIMA OMORO AKINBAMI
ABDULLAHI MAHMUD BAYERO
PARTIES
BAYELSA STATE CAPITAL CITY DVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
APPELLANTS
ECOBANK PLC.
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
HELD
ISSUES
RATIONES DECIDENDI
BURDEN OF PROOF – WHAT IT DOES SIGNIFY
The term burden of proof, which is ubiquitous in adjudication, signifies: “the duty which lies on one or other of the parties either to establish a case or to establish the facts upon a particular issue”. See OKOYE V. NWANKWO (2014) 15 NWLR (PT. 1429) 93 at 133. Per Muhammed, JSC. The law divides it into two categories: the legal burden of proof bears other appellations: persuasive burden, probate burden, ultimate burden, the burden of proof on pleadings or the risk of non-persuasion. See Phipson on Evidence, 11th Edition (Sweet and Maxwell) page 125. –Per Obande Festus Ogbuinya (JCA).
BURDEN OF PROOF – WHO BEARS THE LEGAL BURDEN OF PROOF
The legal burden of proof rests on party who asserts the existence of facts. The Latin version of it is: qui affirmat non a qui negat incumbat probat, see C.P.C V. INEC (2011) 18 NWLR (PT. 1279) 493 at 540. The evidential burden of proof; which swings like a pendulum, oscillates between parties in a case depending on the assertion in the pleading. It is settled law that a party who makes a positive/affirmative assertion is laden with the arduous burden of proving it. Contrariwise, a party that makes a negative assertion carries no burden of proof. This doctrine, burden of proof on affirmative or negative assertion is an offspring of the old Roman Jurisprudence and encapsulated in the Latin maxim: incumbit probation qui dicit, non quit negat – the burden of proving a fact rest on the party who asserts the affirmative of the issue and not upon the party who denies it – for a negative is usually incapable of proof”. See OMISORE V. AREGBESOLA (2015) 15 NWLR (PT. 1482) 205 at 273, per Nweze, JSC: sections 131 – 133 of the Evidence Act 2011, ELEMO V. OMOLADE (1968) NMLR 356 at 361; LEVIS & PEAT (NRI) LTD V. AKHIMEIN (1976) 10 NSCC 360 at 365; VALCAN GASES LTD V GESELLSCHAFT FUR IND. (2001) 9 NWLR (PT. 719) 610; IMANA V. ROBINSON (1976) 3 -4 SC 1 at 9; ONYENGE V. EBERE 18 NSCOR (PT. 1078); EWO V. ANI (2004) 3 NWLR (PT. 861) 610; OLAIYA V. OLAIYA (2002) 12 NWLR (PT. 982) 652; AKANDE V. ADISA (2012) 15 NWLR (PT. 1324) 538; OKOYE V. NWANKWO (SUPRA); ODOM V. PDP(2015) 6 NWLR (PT. 1456) 527; AMADI V. AMADI ( 2017) 7 NWLR (PT. 1563) 108; NNPC SAMFADEK & SONS LTD. (2018) 7 NWLR (PT. 1617) 1; AKINBADE V. INEC (2018) 9 NWLR (PT. 1625) 507; NDUUL V. WAYO (2018) 16 NWLR (PT. 1646) 548; UBN PLC V. RAVIH ABDUL & CO. LTD (2019) 3 NWLR (PT. 1659) 203; EKWEOZOR V. REGD. TRUSTEES, S.A.C.N (2020) 11 NWLR (PT. 1734) 52. – Per Obande Festus Ogbuinya (JCA).
BURDEN OF PROOF – THE ESSENTIALITY OF BURDEN OF PROOF
The essentiality of proper assignment of burden of proof cannot be over-emphasized in the firmament of adjectival law. In law a wrong apportionment of burden of proof will smack of miscarriage of justice, see ONOBRUCHERE V. ESEGINE (1986) 1 NWLR (PT. 190) 799; PHMB V. EJIFAGHA (2000) 11 NWLR (PT. 677) 154; EWO V. ANI (2004) 3 NWLR (PT. 861) 610. – Per Obande Festus Ogbuinya (JCA).
BURDEN OF PROOF – THE PROPER GUAGE FOR THE LOCATION OF BURDEN OF PROOF IN AN ACTION
It is rudimentary law that averments in pleadings of the parties are the proper barometer to gauge the location of burden of proof in an action, see IMANA V. ROBINSON (SUPRA); AMADI V. AMADI (SUPRA). In total obedience to the dictate of the law, I have given a clinical examination to the pleadings, the statement of claim and statement of defence, of the litigating parties. In this regard, I subjected each to a holistic consideration, in order to garner the gist of each party’s case, as ordained by the case-law, see OKOCHI V ANIMKWOI (2003) 18 NWLR (PT. 851) 1; AGI V. PDP (2017) 17 NWLR (PT. 1595) 366; NNPC V. ROVEN SHIPPING LTD (2019) 9 NWLR (PT. 1676)67. – Per Obande Festus Ogbuinya (JCA).
BANKS – WHO REGULATES AND SUPERVISE ALL FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS?
In the wide landscape of commerce, the CBN, the banker of banks, is the financial supervisor of all financial institutions and regulator of interest rate, see CBN V. ARIBO (2018) 4 NWLR (PT. 1608) 130. – Per Obande Festus Ogbuinya (JCA).
CENTRAL BANK OF NIGERIA – ATTITUDE OF THE COURT TOWARDS THE CBN -GUIDELINES
However, the law does grant the court the unbridled license to take judicial notice of CBN Guidelines, see UBN LTD V. SAX (NIG) LTD. (1994) 8 NWLR (PT. 361)150; UBN PLC V. AJABULE (2011) 18 NWLR (PT. 1278) 152; DANIEL HOLDINGS LTD V. UBA PLC (2005) 13 NWLR (PT. 943) 533; AMEDE V. UBA PLC (2018) 6 NWLR (PT. 1614) 29. – Per Obande Festus Ogbuinya (JCA).
TENDERING OF DOCUMENT – THE POSITION OF THE LAW
The current inflexible position of the law is that a document must be tendered by its maker or else it will be declared a documentary hearsay. See BUHARI V. INEC (2008) 18 NWLR (PT. 1120) 246; NYESOM V. PETERSIDE (2016) 7 NWLR (PT. 1512) 452; IKPEAZU V. OTI (2016) 8 NWLR (PT. 1513) 38; OKEREKE V. UMAHI (2016) 8 NWLR (PT. 1524) 438; ISIAKU V. AMOSUN (2016) NWLR (PT. 1518) 47; APGA V. AL-MAKURA (2016) NWLR (PT. 1505) 316; ANDREW V. INEC (2018) 9 NWLR (PT. 1625) 507. – Per Obande Festus Ogbuinya (JCA).
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE – CONCURRENT JURISDICTION OF THE HIGH COURT AND COURT OF APPEAL TO EVALUATE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE
Interestingly, the case-law gives the courts the nod to evaluate documentary evidence, see FAGUNWA V. ADIBI (2004) 17 NWLR (PT. 903) 544. Admirably, the law, in order to foreclose any injustice, donates concurrent jurisdiction to this court and the lower court in evaluation of documentary evidence. See GONZEE (NIG) LTD V. NERDC (2005) 13 NWLR (PT. 943) 634; OLAGUNGU V. ADESOYE (2009) 9 NWLR (PT. 1146) 225; AYUYA V YORIN (2011) 10 NWLR (PT. 1254) 135; EYIBIO V. ABIA (2012) 16 NWLR (PT. 1325) 51; ODUTOLA MABOGUNJE (2013) 7 NWLR (PT. 1354); CPC V. OMBUGADU (2013) 18 NWLR (PT. 1385) 66; UTC (NIG) PLC V. LAWAL (2014) 5 NWLR (PT. 1400) 221; OGUNDALU V. MACJOB (2015) 8 NWLR (PT. 1460) 96; ONWUZURAIKE V. EDOZIEM (2016) 6 NWLR (PT. 1508) 215; EZECHUKWU V ONWUKA (2016) 5 NWLR (PT. 1506) 529; C.K. & W.M.C LTD V. AKINGBADE (2016) 14 NWLR (PT. 1533) 487; EMEKA V. OKAFOR (2017) 11 NWLR (PT. 1577);410; OKORO V. OKORO (2018) 16 NWLR (PT. 1646) 506; D.M.V (NIG) LTD V. NPA (2019) 1 NWLR (PT. 1652); OLOMODA V. MUSTAPHA (2019) 6 NWLR (PT. 1667) 36. – Per Obande Festus Ogbuinya (JCA).
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE – WHAT INTERPRETATION RULE THE COURT WILL ADOPT IN INTERPRETING A DOCUMENT
In addition, in construing a document, the court is enjoined by law to apply the literal rule as a canon of interpretation, id est, to accord the words employed therein their ordinary grammatical meaning without any embellishments, see UBN V. OZIGI (1994) 3 NWLR (PT. 333) 385; UBN LTD V. SAX (NIG.) LTD. (1994) 8 NWLR (PT. 361) 150; ENILOBOLO V. N.P.D.C LTD (2019) 18 NWLR (PT. 1703) 168. – Per Obande Festus Ogbuinya (JCA).
CORPORATE PERSONALITY – THE CONCEPT OF CORPORATE PERSONALITY
A company is an artificial person with rights and liabilities. The concept of corporate personality owes its descent to the ancient English case SALOMON V. SALOMON & CO. LTD (1897) AC 22. An incorporated limited liability company is a persona ficta that enjoys a separate juristic personality that is distinct from the legal entity of its parent company. The acts of a subsidiary company cannot be ascribed to its parent company. The converse is also, true, that is, the conducts of a parent company cannot be attributed to its subsidiary company. See UNION BEVERAGES LTD V. PEPSI COLA INTERNATIONAL LTD. (1994) 3 NWLR (PT. 330) 1; BALET INT’L (NIG) LTD V. OLANIYI (2017) 17 NWLR (PT. 1594) 260; FBN PLC V. A.G FED. (2018) 7 NWLR (PT. 1617) 121; I.T.B. PLC V. OKOYE (2021) 11 NWLR (PT. 1786) 163. – Per Obande Festus Ogbuinya (JCA).
EVIDENCE – HOW THE COURTS MAY ASCERTAIN THE WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE
In ascertaining the weight of evidence, the trial court is enjoined, by law to consider whether the evidence is admissible, relevant, credible, conclusive or more probable than that given by the other party, see MOGAJI V ODOFIN (1978) 3 SC 91; ANYAOKE V. ADI (1986) 2 NSCC, VOL. 17, 799 at 806/(1986) 3 NWLR (PT. 31) 731; NWOKIDU V. OKANU (SUPRA) (2010) 3 NWLR (PT. 1181) 362; AKINLAGUN V. OSHOBOJA (2006) 12 NWLR (PT. 993) 60; GOV. LAGOS STATE V. ADYIGA (2012) 5 NWLR (PT. 1293) 291; OYEWOLE V. AKANDE (2009) 15 NWLR (PT. 1163) 11; AGALA V. OKUSIN (2010) 10 NWLR (PT. 1202) 412. – Per Obande Festus Ogbuinya (JCA).
EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE – WHAT DOES IT CONNOTE?
Instructively, evaluation of evidence connotes the appraisal/assessment of evidence, both viva voce and documentary before a court, and ascription of probative value to them which results in finding of fact. This primary evidentiary duty falls squarely within the exclusive preserve of a trial court. It enjoys this prerogative in that it has the singular advantage, which cannot be recaptured by an appellate court, to watch the witnesses, form impression on their demeanor and assess the credibility or otherwise of their evidence. See OKPA V. STATE (2017) 15 NWLR (PT. 1587) 1; KEKONG V. STATE (2017) 18 NWLR (PT. 1596) 108; EZEANI V. FRN (2019) 12 NWLR (PT. 1686)221; YOUNG SHALL GROW MOTORS LTD V. ONALAJA (2021) 3 NWLR (PT. 1763) 300; OBI V UZOEWULU (2021) 8 NWLR (PT. 1778) 352. – Per Obande Festus Ogbuinya (JCA).
DUTY OF COURT – DISCHARGE OF BOUNDEN DUTY
To discharge the bounden duty, a trial court must show how and why it arrived at its finding of fact and final determination of the issues before it. It must be cautious and understand the distinction between summary or restatement of evidence and evaluation and giving them probative value. It has to appraise the evidence by constructing an imaginary scale of justice and putting the evidence of the parties on the two different pans of the scale. Then, it weighs them to determine which is heavier, not in terms of quantity, but quality of the testimonies, see MOGAJI V. ODOFIN (1978) 3 SC 91; OLAGUNJU V. ADESOYE (2009) 9 NWLR (PT. 1146) 225; OYEWOLE V. AKANDE (2009) 5 NWLR (PT. 1163) 11; AYUYA V. YONRIN (2011) 10 NWLR (PT. 1254) 135; ADUSEI V. ADEBAYO (2012) 3 NWLR (PT. 1288) 534; ODUTOLA V. MABOGUNJE (2013) 7 NWLR (PT. 1355) 522; NDULUE V. OJIAKOR (2013) 8 NWLR (PT. 1356) 311; OKORO V. OKORO (2018) 16 NWLR (PT. 1646) 506; D.M.V (NIG.) LTD. V. NPA (2019) 1 NWLR (PT. 1652) 1635; OGUNTADE V. OYELAKIN (2020) 6 NWLR (PT. 1719) 41. – Per Obande Festus Ogbuinya (JCA).
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE – WHEN DOES THE DOCTRINE OF DUMPING OF DOCUMENTS OCCUR?
The doctrine occurs where a party, who intends to rely on documents in proof of his case, fails to link or relate them to the specific area of his case. The law seriously, deprecates it. See BORNO HOLDING CO. LTD V. BOGOGO (1971) 1 ALL NLR 324; ONIBUDO V. AKIBU (1982) 7 SC 29; IVIENAGBOR V BAZUAYE (1999) 6 SCNJ 235 / (1999) 9 NWLR (PT. 20) 552; ACN V. LAMIDO (2012) 8 NWLR (PT. 1303) 560; CAN V. NYOKO (2013) ALL FWLR (PT. 686) 424; UCHA V. ELECHI (SUPRA); SA’EED V. YAKOWA (SUPRA); MAKU V AL-MAKURA (2016) 5 NWLR (PT. 1505) 201; APGA V. AL-MAKURA (2016) 5 NWLR (PT. 1505) 316; IKPEAZU V. OTTI (2016) 8 NWLR (PT. 1513) 38; LADOJA V. AJIMOBI (2016) 10 NWLR (PT. 1522) 84; OKEREKE V. UMAHI (2016) 11 NWLR (PT. 1526) 179; ANDREW V. INEC (2018) 9 NWLR (PT. 1625) 507; ABUBAKAR V. INEC (2020) 12 NWLR (PT. 1737) 37; ASHIRU V. INEC (2020) 16 NWLR (PT. 1751) 416. – Per Obande Festus Ogbuinya (JCA).
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE – THE POSITION OF THE LAW ON UNSIGNED DOCUMENTS
The current position of the law is that an unsigned document commands no probative value as it cannot boast of the origin of its maker. An unsigned document creates doubt as to its authenticity, see OMEGA BANK PLC V. O.B.C LTD (SUPRA); MAKU V. AL-MAKURA (2016) 5 NWLR (PT. 1505) 201; APGA V. AL-MAKURA (2016) 5 NWLR (1505)316; CONOIL V. VITOL S. A (2018) 9 NWLR (PT. 1653) 237; ASHAKA V. CEM. PLC V. A.M. INV. LTD. (2019) 5 NWLR (PT. 1666) 447; STATE V. SA’IDU (2019) 10 NWLR (PT. 1680) 308. – Per Obande Festus Ogbuinya (JCA).
ADMISSION – WHAT ADMISSION CONNOTES
Admission connotes a statement, oral or documentary, made by a party which suggests an inference as to any fact in issue or relevant fact, see section 20 of the Evidence Act, 2011; UBA PLC V. JARGABA (2007) 11 NWLR (PT. 1045)237; OGUANUHU V. CHIEGBOKA (2013) 6 NWLR (PT. 1351) 588. It is a concession or voluntary acknowledgement made by a party of the existence of fact which is relevant to the cause of adversary; a voluntary acknowledgement made by a of the existence of the truth of certain facts which are inconsistent with his claims in an action. See ADESEI V. ADEBAYO (2012) 3 NWLR (PT. 1288) 534 at 558 per Fabiyi, JSC; UBA V. JARAABA (2007) 31 NSCOR 144; N.B.C.I V. INTEGRATED GAS (NIG) LTD (2005) 4 NWLR (PT. 916) 617; OMISORE V. AREGBESOLA (2015) 15 NWLR (PT. 1482) 205; N.A.S LTD V. UBA PLC. (2005) 14 NWLR (PT. 945) 421. – Per Obande Festus Ogbuinya (JCA).
ADMISSION – WHEN AN ADMISSION BECOMES BINDING ON ITS MAKER
Nevertheless, it is rudimentary law that an admission is binding on its maker if it is clear, unequivocal and devoid of misapprehension of facts, see AL-HASSAN V. ISHAKU (2016) 10 NWLR (PT. 1520) 230. A court has a bounden duty to examine the entire pleadings of a party in order to determine if there is admission, see OKOYE V. NWANKWO (2014) 15 NWLR (PT. 1429) 93; AGI V. PDP (2017) 17 NWLR (PT. 1595) 366; NNPC V. ROVEN SHIPPING LTD (2019) 9 NWLR (PT. 1676) 67. – Per Obande Festus Ogbuinya (JCA).
EVIDENCE – WHEN IS A PIECE OF EVIDENCE CREDIBLE?
A piece of evidence is credible when it is worthy of belief, see AGBI V. OGBEH (2006) 11 NWLR (PT. 990) 1; DIM V. ENEMUO (2009) 10 NWLR (PT. 1149) 353; ETA V. DAZIE (2013) 9 NWLR (PT. 1359) 248; A. J. INV LTD V. AFRIBANK (NIG) PLC (2013) 9 NWLR (PT. 1359) 380; EMEKA V. CHUBA-IKEAZU (2017) 15 NWLR (PT. 1589) 345. – Per Obande Festus Ogbuinya (JCA).
EVIDENCE – WHEN A PIECE OF EVIDENCE IS SAD TO BE CONCLUSIVE
A piece of evidence is conclusive if it leads to a definite result, see NRUAMAH V. EBUZOEME (2013) 13 NWLR (PT. 1372) 474. – Per Obande Festus Ogbuinya (JCA).
PROOF – MEANING OF PROOF IN LAW
Proof, in law is a process by which the existence of facts is established to the satisfaction of the court, see Section 121 of the Evidence Act 2011, OLUFOSOYE V. FAKOREDE (1993) 1 NWLR (PT. 272) 747; AWUSE V. ODILI (2005) 16 NWLR (PT. 952) 416; SALAU V. STATE (2019) 16 NWLR (PT. 1699) 399, (PT. 1372) 474; APC V. KARFI (2018) 6 NWLR (PT. 1616) 479; OJOBO V. MORO (2019) 17 NWLR (PT. 1700) 166. – Per Obande Festus Ogbuinya (JCA).
CASES CITED
STATUTES REFERRED TO
