MINISTRY OF HEALTH (ADAMAWA STATE HEALTH SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT PROJECT II) & ORS v. MOBILE LINKS TECHNOLOGIES LTD
March 30, 2025HADIZA SAIDU v. THE STATE
March 30, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (2020) Legalpedia (CA) 11410
In the Court of Appeal
HOLDEN AT YOLA
Wed Nov 11, 2020
Suit Number: CA/G/358/2019
CORAM
JUMMAI HANNATU SANKEY
JUMMAI HANNATU SANKEY
JUMMAI HANNATU SANKEY
JUMMAI HANNATU SANKEY
JUMMAI HANNATU SANKEY
JUMMAI HANNATU SANKEY
JUMMAI HANNATU SANKEY
JUMMAI HANNATU SANKEY
JUMMAI HANNATU SANKEY
JUMMAI HANNATU SANKEY
JUMMAI HANNATU SANKEY
JUMMAI HANNATU SANKEY
JUMMAI HANNATU SANKEY
JUMMAI HANNATU SANKEY
JUMMAI HANNATU SANKEY
JUMMAI HANNATU SANKEY
JUMMAI HANNATU SANKEY
JUMMAI HANNATU SANKEY
JUMMAI HANNATU SANKEY
JUMMAI HANNATU SANKEY
JUMMAI HANNATU SANKEY
JUMMAI HANNATU SANKEY
JUMMAI HANNATU SANKEY
JUMMAI HANNATU SANKEY
JUMMAI HANNATU SANKEY
JUMMAI HANNATU SANKEY
JUMMAI HANNATU SANKEY
JUMMAI HANNATU SANKEY
JUMMAI HANNATU SANKEY
JUMMAI HANNATU SANKEY
JUMMAI HANNATU SANKEY
JUMMAI HANNATU SANKEY
JUMMAI HANNATU SANKEY
JUMMAI HANNATU SANKEY
JUMMAI HANNATU SANKEY
JUMMAI HANNATU SANKEY
JUMMAI HANNATU SANKEY
JUMMAI HANNATU SANKEY
JUMMAI HANNATU SANKEY
JUMMAI HANNATU SANKEY
JUMMAI HANNATU SANKEY
JUMMAI HANNATU SANKEY
SUNDAY AKINOLA AKINTAN(Dissenting Judgment) JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
SUNDAY AKINOLA AKINTAN(Dissenting Judgment) JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
SUNDAY AKINOLA AKINTAN(Dissenting Judgment) JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
SUNDAY AKINOLA AKINTAN(Dissenting Judgment) JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
JUMMAI HANNATU SANKEY
SUNDAY AKINOLA AKINTAN(Dissenting Judgment) JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
JUMMAI HANNATU SANKEY
JUMMAI HANNATU SANKEY
JUMMAI HANNATU SANKEY
JUMMAI HANNATU SANKEY
JUMMAI HANNATU SANKEY
JUMMAI HANNATU SANKEY
JUMMAI HANNATU SANKEY
ANTHONY lKECHUKWU IGUH JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
SUNDAY AKINOLA AKINTAN(Dissenting Judgment) JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
JUMMAI HANNATU SANKEY
ANTHONY lKECHUKWU IGUH JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
SUNDAY AKINOLA AKINTAN(Dissenting Judgment) JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
JUMMAI HANNATU SANKEY
ANTHONY lKECHUKWU IGUH JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
SUNDAY AKINOLA AKINTAN(Dissenting Judgment) JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
JUMMAI HANNATU SANKEY
ANTHONY lKECHUKWU IGUH JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
SUNDAY AKINOLA AKINTAN(Dissenting Judgment) JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
JUMMAI HANNATU SANKEY
SUNDAY AKINOLA AKINTAN(Dissenting Judgment) JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
JUMMAI HANNATU SANKEY
SUNDAY AKINOLA AKINTAN(Dissenting Judgment) JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
JUMMAI HANNATU SANKEY
SUNDAY AKINOLA AKINTAN(Dissenting Judgment) JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
JUMMAI HANNATU SANKEY
ANTHONY lKECHUKWU IGUH JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
SUNDAY AKINOLA AKINTAN(Dissenting Judgment) JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
JUMMAI HANNATU SANKEY
ANTHONY lKECHUKWU IGUH JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
SUNDAY AKINOLA AKINTAN(Dissenting Judgment) JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
JUMMAI HANNATU SANKEY
ANTHONY lKECHUKWU IGUH JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
SUNDAY AKINOLA AKINTAN(Dissenting Judgment) JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
PARTIES
DR. ABBA BUBA
AMBASSADOR MAHMUD
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The Claimant/Respondent sued the Defendants/Appellants in the High Court of Borno State, claiming a declaration that the 1st Claimant is the rightful and legal owner of the 4 plots of land, a declaration that the Defendant is a trespasser, an order for perpetual injunction restraining the Defendant whether by himself, heirs, agents, servants, privies or whosoever from further trespassing onto the 1st Claimant’s land and N500, 000, as general damages.
The 1st Respondent claimed that the brother of the 2nd Respondent Babagana Suleiman sold four (4) plots of land to him. This transaction was evidenced in a document of 2nd June, 2010, Exhibit A. The land was sold for One Million Naira (N1, 000,000.00). The Appellant and Defendant/Counter Claimant in the lower court claimed he bought three (3) plots for seven hundred and fifty thousand naira (N750, 000.00) from one Ya-Bulama Wayimata. This transaction was reduced into writing and tendered as Exhibit B. The Appellant further registered the said sale in Jere Local Government Council as JRLG/CAND/2995 on 22nd November, 2010 in Vol. 65 pg 47 of the Register. This Certificate of Occupancy was for a term of 99 years.
The Respondents called 2 witnesses and tendered Exhibit A. The 1st Appellant testified himself as Dw1. The 2nd Appellant as Defendant called 4 witnesses and tendered Exhibits B and C. At the end of the trial, written addresses were filed and adopted. The learned trial judge thereafter, delivered his considered judgment in favour of the Respondents. Being dissatisfied the Appellants filed their notice of appeal
HELD
Appeal Dismissed
ISSUES
Whether from the pleadings and the evidence, adduced by the parties, the Respondents as claimants have joined issue with the Appellants and prove their case to warrant the trial Court enter judgment in their favour. Whether having regard to the evidence adduced before the trial Court, the Court has properly evaluated the issue raised by the parties before entering judgment for the Respondents
RATIONES DECIDENDI
EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE – GUIDING PRINCIPLES IN THE EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE
“It has been held in a plethora of cases that in the evaluation of evidence, the trial courts are guided by the following principles, namely;
Whether the evidence is admissible
Whether the evidence is relevant
Whether the evidence is credible
Whether the evidence is conclusive and
whether the evidence is more probable than that given by the other party.
Mogaji vs Odofin (1978) 4 SC pg 91 Aked Industries Ltd vs Olubode (2004) 4 NWLR pt 862 pg 1
DEPOSITION OF WITNESSES – WHETHER THE DEPOSITION OF WITNESSES SIGNED IN A LAWYER’S OFFICE IS COMPETENT
“The law is that such deposition on oath must be signed in the presence of the person authorized to administer oaths. The witnesses by themselves gave in evidence that they signed their witness statement in their lawyer’s office.
Such statements offend the Oaths law and S. 112, 117 of the Evidence Act and S. 19 of the Notary Public Acts. See Chidubem vs Ekenna (2008) LPELR 3913 Aliyu vs Bulari (2019) LPELR 46513.
The witness statements of the Dw1- Dw4 signed in the lawyer’s office are all incompetent and inadmissible. It is hereby expunged having failed the statutory test of authenticity and admissibility Erokwu vs Erokwu (2016) LPELR 41515”.
APPELLATE COURT – FUNCTION OF AN APPELLATE COURT
The main function of an Appellate court is to re-examine and re-evaluate the evidence received by the trial court. This is achieved by examining the whole record of Appeal before the court per Tobi JSC in Dada vs Bankole (2008) LPELR 907 Akeredolu vs Akunrem (1989) where Kawu JSC held.
“The main function of an Appeal court, in my view, is in the first place, to determine whether an error has been committed, it will then consider its gravity and magnitude to justify the reversal of the judgment of the trial court. It is not every error committed by a trial court that would automatically lead to the reversal of its decision. Such an error must have substantially and materially affected the decision of the trial court.
Ordinarily an Appellate court is not entitled to substitute its view for that of the trial court. However, where it appears that the lower court admitted inadmissible documents, the Appellate Court would re-evaluate these documents as an Appellate court is in as good a position as a trial court in the evaluation of documentary evidence. Per Edozie in Gonzee (Nig) Ltd vs NERDC (2005) LPELR 1332”.
DECLARATION OF TITLE TO LAND – WHETHER A PLAINTIFF CAN SUCCEED IN A CLAIM FOR DECLARATION OF TITLE TO LAND ON THE WEAKNESS OF THE CASE OF THE DEFENDANTS
“In a claim for declaration of title to land the onus is on the plaintiffs/Respondents to establish their claim upon the strength of their own case and not upon the weakness of the case of the defendants/Appellants. The Respondents must therefore, satisfy the court that upon their pleadings and evidence adduced by them, they are entitled to the declaration sought. Gbadamosi vs Dairo (2007) 3 WURLR pt 1021 pg 282 Dada vs Dosunmu (2006) 18 NWLR pt 1010 pg 134, Onissaodu vs Elewuju (2006) 13 NWLR pt 998 pg 517 Ajiboye vs Ishula (2006) 13 NWLR pt 998 pg 628”.
PURCHASE OF LAND – WAYS OF PROVING PURCHASE OF LAND
“The payment of the purchase price by a party for a property automatically confers a right on the party which right is enforceable unless otherwise determined. EFP. Co Ltd vs NDIC (2007) pt 1039 pg 216.
Similarly a purchase of land can be proved by a purchase receipt or by an agreement of sale, or by any fact that shows such transaction did take place. Adepante Vs Babatunde (2002) 4 NWLR pt 756 pg 96”.
PURCHASE OF LAND – STATUS OF EVIDENCE OF PURCHASE OF LAND
“From the facts of the case, the entire witnesses’ statements on oath made by the Appellants’ four (4) witnesses, having been expunged from the Record along with the documentary evidence offered in proof of their title, i.e. Exhibits B and C respectively, the Respondent’s claim stands uncontested.
As a result, the Respondents, having tendered Exhibit A as evidence of the transaction of their purchase of the land, it remained as evidence of their equitable interest in the land. In the absence of a better title to the land produced by the Appellant, the Respondents were entitled to Judgement in their favour.
See Ishola V Oluwalogun (2013) LPELR-22206(CA) 48, per Tsammani, JCA; Enadeghe V Eweka (2014) LPELR-24479(CA) 9, D-E, per Ogunwumiju, JCA; Ero V Tinubu (2012) LPELR-7869(CA) 25-26, D-B, per Mshelia, JCA; Ayorinde V Fayoyin (2001) FWLR (Pt. 75) 483.
CASES CITED
Not Available
STATUTES REFERRED TO
Evidence Act|Notary Public Acts|Oaths law|
