COL. NICHOLAS AYANRU (RTD) V MANDILAS LIMITED

CORAM

PARTIES

COL. NICHOLAS AYANRU (RTD) APPELLANTS

RESPONDENTS

AREA(S) OF LAW

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The appellant was the plaintiff at the trial court claiming a declaration that he is not bound by a lease agreement dated 24th August 1970 said to be made between him and the defendant/respondent, concerning his property known as No.3 Murtala Mohammed Road, Benin City and registered as No.7 Vol. 7 at page 95 of the lands Registry Benin City on the ground that he did not sign the disputed lease agreement (Exhibit B and F) since he is an illiterate as he can neither read nor write and did not know the nature and contents of the Deed of Lease before registration

HELD

APPEAL DISMISSED

ISSUES

Whether or not having regard to the evidence on record, the Appellant as Plaintiff at the trial Court had proved his claim for declaration that he did not sign or execute the Deed of Lease dated 24th August, 1970 between himself and the Respondent.

RATIONES DECIDENDI

CIVIL SUITS ARE DECEIDED ON PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE – HE WHO ASSERTS MUST PROVE.

“I cannot overemphasize the all-important position of the law that he who asserts must prove, and that civil suits are decided on preponderance of evidence” ” PER MAHMUD MOHAMMED, J.S.C

ILLITERACY – SAME CANNOT BE PROVED BY ORAL EVIDENCE.

“In any case, it must be emphasised that the fact that the Plaintiff/Appellant was an illiterate cannot be proved satisfactorily by oral evidence as illiteracy is not an object that can be seen, heard, touched, smelled or perceived in any physical form that can be identified for the purpose of being described by any witness in oral evidence to satisfy the requirement of proof under the Evidence Act” PER MAHMUD MOHAMMED, J.S.C

THE COURT OF APPEAL HAS POWERS TO REVIEW EVIDENCE NOT PROPERLY EVALUATED BY A TRIAL COURT

“The law is that where a trial Court fails to properly evaluate the evidence on record or erroneously does so or the conclusion reached is not supported by the evidence on record, then the Court of Appeal in the interest of justice must exercise its own powers of reviewing those facts and drawing the appropriate inference from the proved facts” PER MAHMUD MOHAMMED, J.S.C