Legalpedia Citation: (2023-07) Legalpedia 45602 (CA)

In the Court of Appeal

HOLDEN AT LAGOS, NIGERIA

Fri Jul 21, 2023

Suit Number: CA/L/121/2019

CORAM

OBANDE FESTUS OGBUINYA JCA

FREDRICK OZIAKPONO OHO JCA

MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM SIRAJO JCA

PARTIES

1. 1. TAJUDEEN ODUTOLANI KASALI
2. TANSIRU AFOLABI KASALI
3. MOLIKI DAUDA ORESEGUN-OSIDINA (Original Appellants)
4. MORUFU EGUNLA (Egunla Branch)
5. SHAKIRU ABUDAMO (Abudamo Branch)
6. OLAIDE OSIBAJO (Osibajo Branch)
7. SABIU GANIU (Otudeko Branch)
8. KAZEEM ANOFI (Oresegun Branch)
9. KAYODE ABASS (Raji Branch) (For and on behalf of the entire members of  Tega Ruling Family of Okun Otolu Town, Ibeju Lekki Local Government Area)  (Joined by Order of Court on 29^th day of Sept., 2021.

         

APPELLANTS

1. PRINCE SAFURAINI ADEDOYIN SANNI (OLORI  EBI)
2. IMAM KAMILU BISIRIYU SANNI
3. ALFA TAOFIKI SANNI (SECRETARY)
4.   SEMIU SINA BELLO
5.   MOSIU BOLAJI SANNI
6.   ADE BISIRIYU SANNI
7.   MOSUDI SANNI (For and on behalf of the entire members of  Sanni- Ashieba-Okusokan Family of (Okun-Otolu Town, Ibeju Lekki Local Govt. Area)
8.   LAGOS STATE COUNCIL OF OBAS  & CHIEFS
9.   CHIEFTAINCY COMMITTEE OF IBEJU-LEKKI  LOCAL GOVERNMENT
10. IBEJU-LEKKI LOCAL GOVERNMENT
11. LEKKI LOCAL GOVERNMENT DEVELOPMENT  COUNCIL
12. LAGOS STATE GOVERNMENT
13. HON. COMMISSIONER FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT
14. ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF LAGOS STATE

RESPONDENTS

AREA(S) OF LAW

APPEAL, CHIEFTAINCY, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, CUSTOMARY LAW, EVIDENCE, JUDGMENT, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Baaleship of Otolu village in Ibeju/Lekki Local Government Area of Lagos State is litigation- friendly. The suit, which transfigured into this appeal, is one of such army of suits. The first – seventh respondents conceded that they are two ruling houses in Otolu – Okusokan and Tega Ruling Houses. They claimed to be the descendants of the Sanni-Ashieba-Okusokan. Okusokan, who founded Otolu community, had only one brother – Tega – from the same mother, Osepeju, but different fathers and three children: Okute, Ashieba and Joko. They asserted that it was their turn to produce the next Baale of Otolu, with the first respondent as the nominated candidate, on the demise of the last Baale from Tega Ruling House. It is their case that the eighth – tenth respondents were strangers from Ogun State and had no right to the Baale of Otolu. They alleged that, in September, 2011, the ninth respondent was installed the Baale of Otolu without going through the due process and the appellants and twelfth – fourteenth respondents gave recognition to it in the absence of any chieftaincy declaration for succession thereto. The actions and inactions of the appellants and eighth – fourteenth respondents caused serious injuries and damages to the first – seventh respondents. Sequel to that, the first – seventh respondents besieged the lower court to ventilate their grievances. The eighth – tenth respondents joined issue with the first – seventh respondents and asserted that Okusokan had five brothers (excluding Tega) but had no children. They claimed to be descendants of Okute, one of the brothers of Okusokan, who were entitled to the Baale of Otolu. They described the first – seventh respondents as strangers that had no right to the Baale of Otolu and that the installation of the second appellant as the Baale went through due process involving the two ruling houses. In a considered judgment, the lower court granted the first – seventh respondents’ claims. The first – third appellants were dissatisfied with the decision hence the instant appeal. The fourth – ninth appellants were joined as appellants on 29th September, 2021 and they filed their notice of appeal. The appellants, on the direction of this court, harmonised their two sets of notices of appeal.

HELD

Appeal allowed in part

ISSUES

Whether the learned trial judge was right when he held that the issue of Okusokan not having five brothers apart from Tega has been judicially settled in previous judgment and the 1st –3rd Appellants are estopped from giving evidence on the issue again?

Whether the learned trial judge erred in law when he held that the Chieftaincy Declaration to succession to the Stool of Baale of Otolu was made Secretly without the knowledge of the people of Otolu and the Chieftaincy families in Otolu and is therefore null and void?

Whether the learned trial Judge was right when he granted the Claimants relief that the Sanni-Ashieba-Okusokan are entitled to be included in any Declaration for succession to the Stool of Baale of Otolu under the Okusokan Ruling House?

Whether the learned trial judge was right when he ordered that copies of the Chieftaincy Declaration (if any) should be made available to the 1st – 7th Respondents?

Whether the learned trial judge was right when he held that the 1st – 3rd Appellants not being children of Okusokan or Tega are strange elements of Otolu Village and are not entitled to the stool of Baale of Otolu?

Whether the learned trial judge was right when he nullified the installation of the 2nd Appellant on the ground that it was done during the pendency of the suit, not under part II of the Obas and Chiefs Law of Lagos State and not being one of the children of Okusokan?

Whether the learned trial judge was right when he awarded the sum of N5 Million

claimed by the 1st –7th Respondents against the 1st –3rd Appellants on the grounds of fraud, unnecessary expenses, embarrassment and injuries suffered by them?

RATIONES DECIDENDI

DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE – JURISDICTION OF THE COURT OF APPEAL IN EVALUATION OF 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 on 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 v. 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 O. F. Ogbuinya, JCA

ISSUE ESTOPPEL – THE RULE IN APPLYING ISSUE ESTOPPEL

Generally, the doctrine of issue estoppel postulates that within a cause of action, several issues may come into question which are necessary for the determination of the whole case. The rule is that once one or two of such issues have been distinctly raised in a cause of action and appropriately determined or resolved between the same parties by a court of competent  jurisdiction, neither party nor his servant, agent or privy is allowed to re-open or relitigate that or those decided issues all over again in another matter between the same parties or their agents or privies on the same issues. For issue estoppel to apply, the parties, the issues, the subject matter (res) in the previous proceeding and the current action must be the same and the issue must have been resolved in the previous case, see Fadiora v. Gbadebo (1978) 3 SC 219; Salami v. Sokefun (2004) All FWLR (Pt. 207) 672; Omnia (Nig.) Ltd. v. Dyktrade (2007) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1058) 576; Ajiboye v. Ishola (2006) 13 NWLR (Pt. 998) 638; Ikotun v. Oyekanmi (2008) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1094) 100; Oloruntoba-Oju v. Abdul-Raheem (2009) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1157) 83; Oshoboja v. Amida (2009) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1172) 188; Gbemisola v. Bolarinwa (2014) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1411) 1; APC v. PDP (2015) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1481) 1; Esuwoye v. Bosere (2017) 1 NWLR (Pt. 1546) 256; Zubair v. Kolawole (2019) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1682) 66. – Per O. F. Ogbuinya, JCA

ISSUE FOR DETERMINATION – MEANING OF DETERMINATION AND ISSUE FOR DETERMINATION

An issue for determination is a combination of facts and law which, when decided, determines and affects the fate of an appeal, see Odunze v. Nwosu (2007) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1050) 1; Aderibegbe v. Abidoye (2009) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1150) 529; Okonobor v. D. E. & S. T. Co. Ltd. (2009) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1150) 529; Ukiri v. GecoPrakla (Nig.) Ltd. (2010) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1220) 544; Ezeuko v. State (2016) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1509) 529; PDP v. Umeh (2017) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1579) 272. A determination, in a law, connotes “the settling of a controversy by a judicial decision, a coming to a decision”, see Omisore v. Aregbesola (2015) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1482) 205 at 263, per Nweze, JSC. Incontestably, the point was a recurring decimal as it dominated the four judgments. Nevertheless, in the glaring absence of the duo incidents, raising it as an issue, and its determination, the point cannot be marooned in the murky ocean of issue estoppel. – Per O. F. Ogbuinya, JCA

COURTS – CONDUCTS OF APPELLATE COURTS TO PERVERSE FINDINGS

It will smell of judicial sacrilege to endorse a finding that has disclosed serious hostility to the letters and spirit of the law. – Per O. F. Ogbuinya, JCA

REGISTERED CHIEFTAINCY DECLARATION – MEANING OF A REGISTERED CHIEFTAINCY DECLARATION AND THE REASON FOR INVENTING IT

In the first place, the putative reasons for the invention of a registered chieftaincy declaration is to obviate the need for incessant fielding of witnesses in proof of the customs and traditions regarding chieftaincy titles. It is, therefore, a comprehensive statement/ embodiment of the customs, traditions and/or customary law which fashions and designs the modes that regulate the nomination and selection of candidates to fill a vacant chieftaincy stool. In essence, it qualifies as a codified customary law vis-à-vis filling a chieftaincy stool. It is usually promulgated by the executive arm of government and classified as a subsidiary legislation. Its provisions are binding on the parties and the court, see Olowu v. Olowu` (1985) 3 NWLR (Pt. 13) 372; Odeneye v. Efunuga (supra); Agbai v. Okogbue (1991) 1 NWLR (Pt. 204) 391, Mafimisebi v. Ehuwa (2007) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1018) 385; Adeosun v. Gov., Ekiti State (2012) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1291) 581; Akande v. Adisa (2012) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1324) 538; Olanrewaju v. Oyesomi (2014) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1418) 258; Arowolo v. Olowookere (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1278) 280; Bakare v. Ajose- Adeogun (2014) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1403) 320; Uwazuronye v. Gov., Imo State (2013) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1355) 28; Ehinle v. Ikorodu LG. (2021) 1 NWLR (Pt. 1757) 279; Kassim v. Adesemowo (2021) 18NWLR (Pt. 1807) 67. – Per O. F. Ogbuinya, JCA

CHIEFTAINCY – CONDITIONS FOR A DECLARED CHIEFTAINCY (BAALESHIP) TO BE RECOGNISED

In the face of the dignified chieftaincy status, it (the Baaleship) is entitled to own a chieftaincy declaration issuing from the Chieftaincy Committee with the imprimatur of the Governor of Lagos as decreed by sections 4 and 8 of the Law. By virtue of sections 8 and 27 of the Law, such a chieftaincy declaration has to be registered for it to be effective… In the absence of its registration, the declaration smacks of a quintessence of a nudum pactum which is disrobed of any probative value. Indeed, in the eyes of the law, it is a nude document – Per O. F. Ogbuinya, JCA

COURTS – CONDUCT OF COURTS IN MAKING ORDERS

It is ultra vires a court of law to make a vain order that will be mired in the quicksand of unenforceability. – Per O. F. Ogbuinya, JCA

COUNTER ARGUMENTS – WHEN A PARTY FAILS TO OFFER ANY COUNTER ARGUMENT ON AN ISSUE – MEANING OF ADMISSION

The learned counsel for the first – seventh respondents, in his infinite wisdom, did not deem it necessary to react, debunk or refute the appellants’ critical submissions on the trio issues. The dire/caustic consequences of such a neglect is tucked away in the case-law. The law, seriously, frowns on failure to offer counter arguments on an issue. In Nwankwo v. Yar’adua(2010) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1209) 518 at 556, Onnoghen, JSC, as he then was, succinctly, opined:

It is now settled law that where an opponent fails or neglects to counter any argument or issue validly raised in the brief of argument or during oral presentation, the issue not so contested is deemed conceded by the defaulting party opponent. I therefore, in the circumstance, hold that the 1 st and 2 nd respondents, by not reacting to the issue in question, have conceded the issue as formulated and argued by the learned counsel for the appellants.

See, also, Okongwu v. NNPC (1989) 4 NWLR (Pt. 115) 296; Uboaja v. Akintoye Sowemimo (2008) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1113) 278; Alley v. Tunji (2013) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1362) 275. This oracular pronouncement, warehoused in the ex cathedra authorities that wear the insignia of finality, defines the destiny of the three issues. The first – seventh respondents’ neglect/failure to respond to those issues is an egregious faux pas which, in the mind of the law, is tantamount to admission. In law, admission: “is a concession or voluntary acknowledgement made by a party of the existence of certain facts; a statement made by a party of the existence of a fact which is relevant to the cause of his adversary; a voluntary acknowledgment made by a party of the existence of the truth of certain facts which are inconsistent with his claims in an action”, see Adusei v. Adebayo (2012) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1288) 534 at 558 per Fabiyi, JSC; UBA v. Jaraaba (2007) 31 NSCQR 144; Omisore v. Aregbesola (2015) 15 NWLR (Pt.1482) 205; Al-Hassan v. Ishaku (2016) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1520) 230. – Per O. F. Ogbuinya, JCA

OMNIBUS GROUND – MEANING OF OMNIBUS GROUND OF APPEAL – DUTY OF THE TRIAL COURTS TO EVALUATE EVIDENCE

A castigation of a decision on the premise that a judgment is against the weight of evidence, invariably couched as an omnibus ground, connotes that the decision of the trial court cannot be supported by the weight of evidence advanced by the successful party which the court either wrongly accepted or that the inference it drew or conclusion it reached, based on the accepted evidence, is unjustifiable in law. Also, it implies that there is no evidence, which if accepted, will buttress the finding of the trial court. Furthermore, it denotes that when the evidence adduced by the complaining appellant is weighed against that given by the respondent, the judgment rendered to the respondent is against the totality of the evidence placed before the trial court. 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 SC91; 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.

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 demeanour 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. An appellate court is disrobed of the vires to interfere with a finding of a trial court anchored a demeanour and credibility of witnesses, see Adebanjo v. State (2019) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1688) 121; Tope v. State (2019) 15 NWLR (Pt.1695) 289.

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 of evidence which means assessment of evidence 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 (P1355) 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 O. F. Ogbuinya, JCA

PLEADINGS – CONDUCT OF COURTS WITH REGARDS TO PLEADINGS

The law commands the court to read pleading holistically in order to garner a flowing story of it, 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 O. F. Ogbuinya, JCA

TRADITIONAL EVIDENCE – MEANING OF TRADITIONAL EVIDENCE AND INSTANCES WHEN IT COULD BE UTILISED – CONDUCT OF COURTS IN RELYING ON TRADITIONAL EVIDENCE

By way of prefatory remarks, traditional evidence is evidence derived from tradition or the statement formerly made by deceased persons in regard to questions of pedigree, ancient boundaries, and the like, where no living witnesses can be produced having knowledge of the facts, see Ewo v. Ani (2004) 3 NWLR (Pt. 861) 610. It is hearsay evidence whose admissibility is ordained by section 44 of the Evidence Act, see Ewo v. Ani (supra).

Traditional evidence is one of the five recognised ways of proving title land within the corpus of the Nigerian legal system. The apex Court had sanctioned these modes in seas of judicial authorities, see Idundun v. Okumagba (1976) 9 -10 SC 227; Ewo v. Ani (supra); Balogun v. Akanji (2005) 10 NWLR (Pt. 933) 393; Yusuf v. Adegoke (2007) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1045) 332; Odunukwe v. Ofomata (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1225) 404; Momoh v. Umoru (2011) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1270) 217; Dakolo v. Rewane-Dakolo (2011) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1272) 22; Iseogbekun v. Adelakun (2013) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1337) 140; Arum v. Nwobodo (supra). Traditional evidence is not limited to proving title to land. It is utilised in chieftaincy matters, see Iheanacho v. Chigere (2004) 17 NWLR (Pt. 901) 130; Arowolo v. Olowookere (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1278) 280; Okuleye v. Adesanya (2014) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1422) 521.

The import of traditional evidence is that where parties to an action for declaration of title to land, or traditional stool, proffer competing credible traditional histories, putting the trial court in bewilderment as to which side to believe and accept as both may be right, then demeanour of witnesses is of a little guide, so that it will have to resort to the recent acts of possession and ownership by the parties. The ageless principle of law traces its paternity to the decision of the West African Court of Appeal in the celebrated case of Kojo II v. Bonsie (1957) 1 WLR 1223/(1952/1955) 14 WACA 242. The Supreme Court has given its imprimatur to this hallowed rule of law in bags of judicial authorities, see Ohiaeri v. Akabeze (supra)/(1992) 2 SCNJ (Pt. 1) 76; Mogaji v. Cadbury Nig. Ltd. (1985) 2 NWLR (Pt. 7) 393 at 430; Eronini v. Iheuko (supra); Nwokidu v. Okanu (supra); Yusuf v. Adegoke (supra); Ogun v. Akinpelu (2004) 18 NWLR (Pt. 905) 362; Onwubuariri v. Igboasoiyi (2011) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1234) 357; Odunukwe v. Ofomata (supra); Eyo v. Onuoha (2011) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1257) 1; Dakolo v. Rewane-Dakolo (supra); I. A. Umezulike, CJ, ABC of Contemporary Land Law in Nigeria, Revised and Enlarged Edition (Enugu: Snaap Press Limited, 2013) page 30. – Per O. F. Ogbuinya, JCA

EVIDENCE – MEANING OF CREDIBLE EVIDENCE AND CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE

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. In the same vein, a piece of evidence is conclusive if it leads to a definite result, see Nruamah v. Ebuzoeme (2013) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1372) 474. – Per O. F. 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 O. F. Ogbuinya, JCA

ORDER OF COURT – DUTY OF PARTIES TO OBEY ANY SUBSISTING ORDER OF COURT – THE CONCEPT OF SELF-HELP

The law, in its wisdom, has saddled on the first – third appellants the bounden duty/obligation, under pain of punishment, to obey any subsisting order of court. It is not at the discretion of a party to obey order of court. It is of no moment that the order was wrongly made or without jurisdiction. The moment an order of court, of any cadre/stratum, is alive and extant, it must be obeyed to the letter. Disobedience of court order constitutes an affront to the rule of law-the soul of democracy. It is a mockery of administration of justice. It nurtures and grooms anarchy, chaos or totalitarianism which erodes on the peaceful co-existence in a society. It undermines the glorious integrity and sanctity of the court and temple of justice. It renders the court a paper tiger and a toothless bulldog in the sphere of adjudication. The first – third appellants, by allowing the second appellant to occupy the traditional throne of Baale of Otolu village pendente lite, treated the order to maintain status quo with the undeserved disdain and contempt. Such disobedience carries a price in the province of adversarial system of adjudication. It cannot be gainsaid that the installation, which occurred during the lifespan of the suit, which mothered the appeal, was a classic exemplification of invitation to self-help. Self-help breeds anarchy which is an anathema to democracy and civilised society. It is a quintessence of contempt ex facie curiae. It deflates the concept of status quo; a fortiori in a matter that is sub judice. It foists fait accompli on a court of law. No Judex, in the world, will embrace and condone self-help – a primitive act that seeks to dethrone justice, man’s greatest interest in the universe, from its Olympian status in adjudication. It, self-help, deserves to be censured and crucified in the temple of justice. – Per O. F. Ogbuinya, JCA

FRAUD – MEANING OF FRAUD – THE STANDARD OF PROOF WHEN A PARTY ALLEGES FRAUD

Fraud, a leprous term, is amphibious in application as it “covers commission of crime as well as incidents of mere impropriety”, see Okoli v. Moreeab Finance (Nig) Ltd (2007) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1053) 37 at 72, per Ogbuagu, JSC. It connotes a willful act on the part of someone, whether words or conduct whereby another person is sought to be deprived, by illegal or inequitable means, of his entitlement, see Adimora v. Ajufo (1988) 3 NWLR (Pt. 80) 1; Egbo v. Nwali (1998) 6 NWLR (Pt. 553) 195; Onwudiwe v. FRN (2006) 10 NWLR (Pt. 988) 382; Ntuks v. NPA (2007) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1051) 392; Otukpo v. John (2012) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1299) 357; ACN v. INEC (2013) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1370) 161; Trade Bank Plc v. Pharmatek Ind. P. Ltd. (2020) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1725) 124.The law insists that a party who invites and relies on fraud in a case must plead (with particulars) and prove it by evidence beyond reasonable doubt, see Okoli v. Morecab Finance (Nig.) Ltd. (2007) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1053) 37; Belgore v. Ahmed (supra); Obitude v. Onyesom Comm. Bank Ltd. (2014) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1412) 352; Yakubu v. Jauroyel (2014) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1418) 205; Malami v. Ohikhuare (2019) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1670) 132. – Per O. F. Ogbuinya, JCA

REPLY – FUNCTION OF A REPLY

In the wide landscape of adjectival law, reply is not the forum to plead particulars of fraud. The function of reply is to answer to new points raised in the statement of defence. It is not a venue for a plaintiff/claimant to rehearse his case or fill up the lacunae in a statement of claim. – Per O. F. Ogbuinya, JCA

PROOF – STANDARD OF PROOF WHERE COMMISSION OF CRIME IS DIRECTLY IN ISSUE

It is an ancient elementary law that where commission of crime by a party to any proceeding is directly in issue in any proceeding, civil or criminal, it must be proved beyond reasonable doubt, see section 135 of the Evidence Act, 2011. – Per O. F. Ogbuinya, JCA

DAMAGES – CONDITIONS FOR APPELLATE COURTS TO INTERFERE WITH AWARD OF DAMAGES

An appellate court does not usually interfere with award of damages unless: (a) the trial court acted under a mistake of law; or (b) where the trial court acted in disregard of some principles of law; or (c) where the trial court acted under misapprehension of facts; or (d) where it has taken into account irrelevant matters or failed to take into account relevant matters; or (e) where injustice would result if the appellate court does not interfere; or (f) where the amount awarded is ridiculously low or high that it must have been a wholly erroneous estimate of the damages, see Cameroon Airlines v. Otutuizu (2011) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1238) 512; British Airways v. Atoyebi (2014) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1424) 253; Mekwunye v. Emirates Airlines (2019) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1677) 191. – Per O. F. Ogbuinya, JCA

COURTS – CONDUCT OF COURTS IN GIVING AWARDS/IN AWARDING DAMAGES

In our adjudicatory system, the bounden duty of a court, in a civil claim, is to render unto a party according to his proven claim. The reason is plain. A court of law is not a santa claus that relishes in gratuitous awards. – Per O. F. Ogbuinya, JCA

CASES CITED

NOT AVAILABLE

STATUTES REFERRED TO

1. Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended)
2. Evidence Act, 2011
3. Obas and Chiefs Law of Lagos State
4. High Court of Lagos State (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2012 (HC Rules)

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT