BUBA YANGARI VS. YERIMA ABISHAI SALEH

CORAM

PARTIES

BUBA YANGARI APPELLANTS

RESPONDENTS

AREA(S) OF LAW

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Plaintiff/Appellant filed an action in the High Court of Gombe State against the Defendants/Respondents seeking a declaration that by the Shongom custom he is the legitimate owner and duly qualified for a declaration of title to all that piece of land located at Pokwaka near Lalaipido Maternity clinic in Shongom local government of Gombe State, a declaration that the acts of the Defendants in entering unto the property and partitioning, selling and buying of plots thereon without the Plaintiff’s knowledge or consent amounts to trespass, the sum of Ten Million Naira as general and aggravated damages for trespass and an order of perpetual injunction restraining all the Defendants, their servants agents and privies from further acts of trespass on the Plaintiff’s property. The trial court after considering the evidence led by the parties and addresses of learned counsel for the parties, non- suited the Plaintiff. Aggrieved by the order of the trial court, the Appellant has filed an appeal before this court.

HELD

Appeal Dismissed.

ISSUES

Whether the lower court was right in declaring as inconclusive the proof of the Shongom Native Law and Custom which the parties all belongs with regards to inheritance to land as applicable to this case when there was positive evidence on the issue. • Whether the Gombe State High Court was right in coming to the conclusion that the present case is one of two inconclusive traditional histories and whether the court properly applied the principles as laid down in the cases of Are V. Ipaye (1996) 2 NWLR (Pt. 132) 298, Kojo V. Bonsie (1957) 1 WRL 1223 and Mogaji V. Cadbury (Nig) Ltd. (1985) 2 NWLR (Pt. 7) 393 Etc. to the facts at hand. • Whether the trial Gombe state High Court judges was right to have held that the Doctrine of standing-by does not apply to this case looking at the facts and evidences adduced before the lower court. • Whether the court below was right to have dismissed the claims for damages for trespass against the Respondents, the Appellant having proved title and act of trespass against the Respondents. • Whether or not the decision to non-suit Appellant and open the door for any other interested party” to re-litigate over this matter as done by the lower court was a decision against the weight of evidence.