CORAM

Tunde Oyebanji Awotoye-Justice court of appeal

Ugochukwu Anthony Ogakwu-Justice of the court of appeal

Hadiza Rabiu Shagari -Justice court of appeal

PARTIES

ENGR. LATEEF ISHOLA OWOLABI

APPELLANTS

M/S DOLPHIN STEELS NIGERIA LIMITED

RESPONDENTS

AREA(S) OF LAW

LAND LAW, EVIDENCE, FAIR HEARING, APPEAL, TITLE TO LAND, EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The appellant, Engineer Lateef Ishola Owolabi, sued the respondent, M/S Dolphin Steels Nigeria Limited, at the High Court of Ogun State, seeking a declaration of entitlement to a Certificate of Occupancy over a disputed piece of land in Papalanto, Ogun State. The appellant claimed to have purchased the land from the Oguntolu Akinfenwa family and tendered several exhibits to support his claim. However, the trial court dismissed the appellant’s case, ruling that he had failed to prove his title to the land on a balance of probabilities. Dissatisfied with the decision, the appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal.

HELD

ISSUES

RATIONES DECIDENDI

RAISING ISSUE SUO MOTU – WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT BREACHED THE APPELLANT’S RIGHT TO FAIR HEARING BY RAISING THE ISSUE OF THE EVIDENTIAL VALUE OF EXHIBIT B SUO MOTU

“The Court held that the trial court did not raise the issue suo motu, as both parties had made submissions on the probative value of Exhibit B in their final addresses. The trial court’s evaluation of the exhibit was part of its duty to consider all evidence before it.”

– Per Ugochukwu Anthony Ogakwu, JCA

FAILURE TO EVALUATE EVIDENCE – WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT FAILED TO PROPERLY EVALUATE THE APPELLANT’S EVIDENCE AND ACCEPTED INCONSISTENT TESTIMONY OF THE DEFENSE WITNESSES

“The Court found that the trial court had properly evaluated the evidence, including Exhibits A and B. The Court held that the inconsistencies in the defense witnesses’ testimony were not material and did not affect the overall findings.”

– Per Ugochukwu Anthony Ogakwu, JCA

EXPUNGING EVIDENCE – WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT WAS RIGHT IN EXPUNGING EXHIBIT D AFTER ADMITTING IT

“The Court concluded that the trial court was correct to expunge Exhibit D, as the document was hearsay and inadmissible. A trial court has the power to revisit its ruling on admissibility during final judgment.”

– Per Ugochukwu Anthony Ogakwu, JCA

CAPACITY TO TESTIFY – WHETHER THE RESPONDENT’S WITNESSES, WHO WERE NOT MEMBERS OF THE LAND-OWNING FAMILY, HAD THE CAPACITY TO TESTIFY ON THE ALIENATION OF THE PROPERTY

CASES CITED

STATUTES REFERRED TO

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGEMENT