CORAM

AKIOLA OLUFEMI EJIWUNMI, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

ABUBAKAR BASHIR WALI (Presided) JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

YEKINI OLAYIWOLA ADIO JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

ANTHONY IKECHUKWU IGUH JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

PARTIES

1.EGBUCHULEM MADUMERE2. OKEREKE IGWEANYA3. MICHAEL OKEREKE (For themselves and on behalf of members of Umunnam Kindred in Ogberuru, Orin Judicial Division). APPELLANTS

RESPONDENTS

AREA(S) OF LAW

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The plaintiffs claim is for declaration of title, possession and injunction against the defendant. ?

HELD

This appeal therefore fails and is hereby dismissed with N1,000.00 costs in favour of the respondents ?

ISSUES

“1. Whether the Court of Appeal was not wrong in upholding the decision of the High Court that Exhibit ‘C’ does not bind the respondents even in the face of the overwhelming evidence before the court.2. Whether the Court of Appeal was right when it upheld the use by the High Court of Exhibit ‘G’ which is evidence in a previous proceeding to contradict the evidence of the 3rd appellant and as such declare him an unreliable witness when it was not tendered to contradict him during cross-examination, but was only tendered and admitted through D.W.1 at the opening of the defendants’ case when the defendants have lost the opportunity to confront the 3rd appellant with the exhibit and cross examine him therewith.3. Whether the alleged contradictions are material enough to merit the great emphasis placed on them by the High Court and the Court of Appeal so as to have so much sway on the decisions of the courts against the appellants.4. Whether the Court of Appeal was right when it upheld the High Court’s decision that the fact that Exhibit ‘D’ was written by a member of the appellant’s family constitutes an admission of the contents therein by the appellants when evidence abound that the appellants refused to recognise the work and when the Author in fact confirmed their refusal to recognise the work. And as such whether Exhibit ‘D’ could be relied upon as establishing the traditional history of Ogberuru. 5. Whether the Court of Appeal was right when it upheld the application of section 45 of the Evidence Act in favour of the respondents when in fact, no circumstances exist for the application of the section in defendants’ favour and whether the section ought not to have been applied in favour of the plaintiffs instead.6. Whether the Court of Appeal should not have considered the issue of the grant of land to the Mission and whether a finding one way or the other on who really made the grant would not have helped the Court of Appeal to determine the actual owner of the land in dispute. 7. Whether the judgment is not against the weight of evidence.” ?

RATIONES DECIDENDI

CASES CITED

Mogaji v. Odofin & Ors. (1978) 4 S.C. 91.

STATUTES REFERRED TO

None.

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT