MOBIL PRODUCING NIGERIA UNLIMITED v. H.R.H. PERE SMART EKPAMA & ANOR.
March 30, 2025MINISTRY OF HEALTH (ADAMAWA STATE HEALTH SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT PROJECT II) & ORS v. MOBILE LINKS TECHNOLOGIES LTD
March 30, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (2020) Legalpedia (CA) 44594
In the Court of Appeal
HOLDEN AT PORT HARCOURT
Wed Nov 18, 2020
Suit Number: CA/PH/549/2008
CORAM
HUSSEIN MUKHTAR, JUSTICE COURT OF APPEAL
HUSSEIN MUKHTAR, JUSTICE COURT OF APPEAL
HUSSEIN MUKHTAR, JUSTICE COURT OF APPEAL
HUSSEIN MUKHTAR, JUSTICE COURT OF APPEAL
HUSSEIN MUKHTAR, JUSTICE COURT OF APPEAL
HUSSEIN MUKHTAR, JUSTICE COURT OF APPEAL
HUSSEIN MUKHTAR, JUSTICE COURT OF APPEAL
HUSSEIN MUKHTAR, JUSTICE COURT OF APPEAL
HUSSEIN MUKHTAR, JUSTICE COURT OF APPEAL
HUSSEIN MUKHTAR, JUSTICE COURT OF APPEAL
HUSSEIN MUKHTAR, JUSTICE COURT OF APPEAL
HUSSEIN MUKHTAR, JUSTICE COURT OF APPEAL
HUSSEIN MUKHTAR, JUSTICE COURT OF APPEAL
HUSSEIN MUKHTAR, JUSTICE COURT OF APPEAL
HUSSEIN MUKHTAR, JUSTICE COURT OF APPEAL
ABUBAKAR BASHIR WALI,JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
ABUBAKAR BASHIR WALI,JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
CRAIG JUSTICE, SUPREME COURTOBASEKI JUSTICE, SUPREME COURTUWAIS JUSTICE, SUPREME COURTKAWU JUSTICE,
HUSSEIN MUKHTAR, JUSTICE COURT OF APPEAL
ABUBAKAR BASHIR WALI,JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
ABUBAKAR BASHIR WALI,JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
CRAIG JUSTICE, SUPREME COURTOBASEKI JUSTICE, SUPREME COURTUWAIS JUSTICE, SUPREME COURTKAWU JUSTICE,
ABUBAKAR BASHIR WALI,JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
CRAIG JUSTICE, SUPREME COURTOBASEKI JUSTICE, SUPREME COURTUWAIS JUSTICE, SUPREME COURTKAWU JUSTICE,
HUSSEIN MUKHTAR, JUSTICE COURT OF APPEAL
ABUBAKAR BASHIR WALI,JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
HUSSEIN MUKHTAR, JUSTICE COURT OF APPEAL
ABUBAKAR BASHIR WALI,JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
HUSSEIN MUKHTAR, JUSTICE COURT OF APPEAL
ABUBAKAR BASHIR WALI,JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
HUSSEIN MUKHTAR, JUSTICE COURT OF APPEAL
ABUBAKAR BASHIR WALI,JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
CRAIG JUSTICE, SUPREME COURTOBASEKI JUSTICE, SUPREME COURTUWAIS JUSTICE, SUPREME COURTKAWU JUSTICE,
HUSSEIN MUKHTAR, JUSTICE COURT OF APPEAL
ABUBAKAR BASHIR WALI,JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
HUSSEIN MUKHTAR, JUSTICE COURT OF APPEAL
ABUBAKAR BASHIR WALI,JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
CRAIG JUSTICE, SUPREME COURTOBASEKI JUSTICE, SUPREME COURTUWAIS JUSTICE, SUPREME COURTKAWU JUSTICE,
ABUBAKAR BASHIR WALI,JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
CRAIG JUSTICE, SUPREME COURTOBASEKI JUSTICE, SUPREME COURTUWAIS JUSTICE, SUPREME COURTKAWU JUSTICE,
ABUBAKAR BASHIR WALI,JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
CRAIG JUSTICE, SUPREME COURTOBASEKI JUSTICE, SUPREME COURTUWAIS JUSTICE, SUPREME COURTKAWU JUSTICE,
PARTIES
ELDER EVANS ADUMEIN ASEIMO
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The Appellants before the High Court of Bayelsa State, had taken out a Writ of Summons with respect to a piece of land known as Esolabhu land situate at Otuegwe I Community, in Ogbia Local Government Area of Bayelsa State against the Respondents wherein as per their amended Statement of Claim they sought for a declaration of title to the land; trespass; an Order to pay atonement for trespass; and an Order for perpetual injunction. In response, the Respondents filed an amended Statement of Defence and Counter Claimed against the Appellants. At the end of the trial, the lower Court entered judgment against the Appellants and in favor of the Respondents. Aggrieved by the said Judgment, the Appellants filed Notice of Appeal.
HELD
Appeal Dismissed
ISSUES
Whether on the state of pleadings and evidence the learned trial Judge was right in law in holding that, “so far as I can see evidence of the Claimants is inconsistent with their claim in the sense that whereas their claim is in respect of the entire Esolabhu land, their evidence was only in respect of the northern Esolabhu land they have failed to prove their claim”? Whether from the pleadings and evidence, the learned trial Judge was right in law and properly evaluated evidence in holding thus: “from the totality of evidence of both parties before me including the survey plan filed by each side, which I have looked at very closely, I am of the honest view that the Defendants/Counter Claimants have more credible evidence entitling them to ownership of the northern Esolabhu land, the land in dispute in the suit. Accordingly, the suit of the Claimants fails while that of the Defendants/Counter Claimants succeeds”? Whether the learned trial Judge was legally justified in awarding the sum of Three Million Naira (N3,000,000.00) for trespass against the Appellants when there was no prove of trespass?
RATIONES DECIDENDI
TRADITIONAL HISTORY – MODE OF RESOLVING CONFLICTS IN TRADITIONAL HISTORY
“In resolving conflicts in traditional history, “the claim of traditional evidence given by a party must flow. The story must be consistent in the sense of oneness of purpose and not disconnected or disintegrated in material particulars.” See per Tobi, JSC in Salawu & Anor vs. Yusuf & Anor (2007) 12 NWLR (pt. 1049) p. 707”.-
TRADITIONAL HISTORY – INSTANCE WHEN THE RULE IN KOJO II VS. BONSIE WILL BE RESORTED TO WHEN THERE ARE CONFLICTS IN TRADITIONAL HISTORY
“There is need to emphasize that when there are conflicts in traditional history the rule in Kojo II vs. Bonsie (1957) 1 WLR 1223 is only resorted to when the traditional histories are both plausible and capable of being believed. In the case of Kojo II vs. Bonsie the Privy Council had this to say on resolution of traditional history.
“The dispute was all as to the traditional history which has been handed down by word of mouth from their forefathers. In this regard, it must be recognized that, in the course of transmission from generation to generation mistakes may occur without any dishonest motives whatever, witnesses of the utmost veracity may speak honestly but erroneously as to what took place a hundred or more years ago. Where there is a conflict of traditional history, one side or the other must be mistaken, yet both may be honest in their belief. In such a case, demeanour is little guide to the truth. The best way is to test the traditional history by reference to the facts in recent years as established by evidence and by seeing which of two competing histories is the more probable”
Where however the traditional history of one of the parties fails in terms of not being conclusive in that there are gaps to be explained, a trial Judge has no choice as he did but to accept the other plausible and credible traditional history. See Biariko & Ors vs. Edeh-Ogwuile & Ors (2001) 12 NWLR (pt. 726) p. 235. Unpleaded facts cannot be relied upon to sustain Appellant’s case.
The Appellants keep on referring to acts of ownership. Unfortunately vital things that should have been pleaded are not pleaded, for instance, that the land in Northern Esolabhu was apportioned to Adieli has not been pleaded and such evidence cannot therefore be admissible, as it goes to no issue. See Emegokwue vs. Okadigbo (1973) ANLR p. 314.-
REPLY – PURPOSE OF A REPLY – CONSEQUENCE OF USING IT AS AN AMENDMENT TO A STATEMENT OF CLAIM
“My Lords, a Reply can never be used to amend a Statement of Claim. That is completely contrary to its purpose and function. A Reply must not contradict or depart from the Statement of Claim. See Ughuteube vs. Shonowo (2004) 16 NWLR (pt. 899) p. 300.
What should have been done by the Appellants was to have amended their Statement of Claim to correct errors discovered by them. See also Oje & Anor vs. Babalola & Ors (1991) 4 NWLR (pt. 185) p. 267; Olubodun & Ors vs. Lawal & Anor (2008) 17 NWLR (pt. 1115) p. 1.
It is also noteworthy that what the Appellants sought to correct in their Reply to the Defendants’ Statement of Defence and Defence to Counter-Claim filed on 3/6/2011 was not even corrected in their Amended Statement of Claim, subsequently filed on 28/7/2011
The Reply relied upon by the Claimants/Appellants cannot serve the purpose for which it was filed. The consequence of this is, it is not competent. –
AWARD OF DAMAGES – CIRCUMSTANCES WHEN AN APPELLATE COURT MAY INTERFERE WITH AN AWARD OF DAMAGES BY A TRIAL COURT
“An award of damages is at the discretion of trial Court. An Appellate Court will not lightly interfere with such an award because it is inclined to award a different amount in order to justify reversing the decision of a trial Court. The Appellate Court must be satisfied that either:
“(1)the trial Court acted in wrong principles of law or under a mistake of law or
(2) the award is arbitrary or perverse, or
(3)there has been an element of wrong exercise of discretion in the award or
(4) injustice would result if the Appeal Court does not interfere and
(5) The amount awarded is ridiculously high or low.”
See Anambra State Environmental Sanitation & Authority & Anor vs. Ekwenem (2009) 13 NWLR (pt. 1158) p. 410, Oduwole & Ors vs. West (2010) 10 NWLR (pt. 1203) p. 598. –
AWARD OF GENERAL DAMAGES – GUIDING PRINCIPLES ON THE AWARD OF GENERAL DAMAGES IN TRESPASS TO LAND
“The law is clear on the guiding principles on the award of general damages in trespass to land.
In Gbemisola vs. Bolarinwa (2014) 3 S.C.N.J 167 at 191 M. D. Mohammed, JSC had this to say on award of damages for trespass:
“The law is that a Plaintiff is entitled to nominal damages for trespass even if no damage or loss is caused and if damage or loss is seized same is recovered according to general principles. See Ummina vs. Okwuraiye (1978) 6-7 SC 1 at 11-12 and Osuji vs. Isiocha (1989) 3 NWLR (pt. 111) 623 at 634.”
–
CASES CITED
Not Available
STATUTES REFERRED TO
Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended)|Evidence Act, 2011|
