Legalpedia Citation: (2014-05) Legalpedia (SC) 82518
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Fri May 16, 2014
Suit Number: SC. 265/2003
CORAM
CHRIS TOPHER MITCHELL CHKWUMA-ENEH, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
MAHMUD MOHAMMED JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA
PARTIES
CHIEF JAMES OLUSEYI OLONADECHIEF S. A. ADEOGUN (Suing for themselves and on behalf Of Ijesha Community of Abeokuta)? APPELLANTS
H. BABATUNDE SOWEMIMO
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The Appellants as Plaintiffs at the High Court sued the Respondent/Defendant through an amended statement of claim seeking for the following relief, a declaration of title to land, damages and an injunction restraining the Respondent/ Defendant from trespass to the said land. The Respondent/ Defendant also filed a counter claim for a declaration of title, damages, perpetual injunction in respect of the disputed land which the Appellants/ Plaintiffs laid claim on. At the hearing, witnesses testified with documents and exhibits tendered in Court. At the end of the trial, the High Court judge dismissed the suit brought by the Appellants /Plaintiffs. Not satisfied, the Appellants/ Plaintiffs appealed to the Court of Appeal which affirmed the decision of the High Court. Further dissatisfied, the Appellants /Plaintiffs further appealed to the Supreme Court.
HELD
Appeal Dismissed
ISSUES
1. Whether the Justices of the Court of Appeal were not wrong or committed misdirection of law when they confirmed the granting of the Respondent’s counter-claim based on two contradictory roots of his title to the land in dispute?
2. Whether the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal were not wrong in confirming the judgment of the trial court based on acts of possession as opposed to the unproved root of title as pleaded?
3. Whether the Justices of Appeal (sic) were not wrong in their holding that although the learned trial judge directed the visitation to the locus-in-quo, the failure to eventually visit the locus in quo before judgment did not occasion miscarriage of justice?
RATIONES DECIDENDI
GROUND OF APPEAL – A GROUND OF APPEAL MUST RELATE TO THE JUDGMENT OF THE LOWER COURT – EFFECT OF A COMPLAINT WHICH DOES NOT FLOW FROM THE DECISION APPEALED AGAINST
“It is settled principle of Law that a ground of appeal must arise, flow from or relate to the judgment of the court appealed from. Any complaint that does not flow from the decision appealed against cannot legitimately be entertained by this Court.” PER MUHAMMAD JSC.
CONCURRENT FINDINGS OF FACTS- CIRCUMSTANCES THAT CAN LEAD TO THE DISTURBANCE OF THE CONCURRENT FINDINGS OF FACT BY THE LOWER COURTS
“It is not the practice of this court to disturb the concurrent findings of fact by the two lower courts. This is because it is presumed that the conclusions reached by the trial court, which had the unique opportunity of seeing and hearing the witnesses testify on issues of fact, are presumed to be correct.
The person seeking to upset the judgment on facts must displace the presumption. He must be able to satisfy this court that the findings are perverse or that some miscarriage of justice has occurred or that there has been a violation of some principle of law or of procedure.” PER KEKERE-EKUN JSC.
CASES CITED
A.G. Leventis Nig Plc V. Chief Christian Akpu (2007) 6 SCNJ 242,Balogun & Ors. Vs Agboola (1974) 1 ALL NLR (Pt.2) 66Cameroon Airlines Vs Otutuizu (2011) 1 – 2 SC (Pt.III) 200Chami Vs UBA Plc (2010) 6 NWLR (Pt.11911 494 SC.Chief Ikedi Ohakim & anor V. Chief Martin Agbaso & 4 ors (2010) 6-7 SC 85.Eholor Vs Osayande (1992) 7 SCNJ 217: (1992) 6 NWLR (Pt.249) 524Magaji v. Odofin (1978) 4 SC 91Oguntayo V. Adelaja & others (2009) 6-7 SC (Pt 111) 91Ojokolobo v. Alamu (1998) 9 NWLR (pt 565) 226Okoya v. Santili (1994) 4 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 338) 256 at 562.Qqoala Vs The State (1991) 2 NWLR (Pt.175) 509:Sha v. Kwau (2000) 5 SC 178.Toudus Services Nig Ltd v. Taisei (W.A) Ltd (2006) 6 SC 200Veepee IND Ltd v. COCA IND Ltd (2008) 4 – 5 SC (pt 3) 116.Yadis (Nig.) Ltd. Vs G.N.LC, Ltd. (20071 14 NWLR (Pt.1055) 584: (20071 4-5 SC 236;?
STATUTES REFERRED TO
None