CORAM

---

MUHAMMADU LAWAL UWAIS

SALIHU MODIBBO ALFA BELGORE JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

MICHAEL EKUNDAYO OGUNDARE JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

NIKI TOBI) JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

YEKINI OLAYIWOLA ADIO JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

JAMES OGENYI OGEBE, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

---

PARTIES

---

FREDERICK OLUYOLE BAMGBOYE APPELLANTS

---

RESPONDENTS

---

AREA(S) OF LAW

---

---

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The plaintiff’s claim was for a declaration of title on a piece of land situate, at Obele Igbodo otherwise known as Papa Ajao in Mushin District of Lagos State also called Palm Avenue while the defendant claimed root of her title through Oteniya family and that she purchased the land in dispute through their attorney, Ali Isiba ?

---

HELD

---

The court held the plaintiff was in possession and the defendant trespassed on the land. The appeal therefore succeeds on trespass and injunction. The court  awarded forty-three thousand and two hundred naira (N43,200.00) damages . The plaintiff’s appeal on title failed.

---

ISSUES

---

Whether the decision of the Court of Appeal that the defendant proved title to the land in dispute was correct in law.Whether the defendant’s title Exhibit 13 (deed of conveyance suit was pending in Court) relied on by the learned trial Judge in holding that the defendant proved a better title to the land in dispute was not void in law by the doctrine of lis pendens?If so, can the Court of Appeal without a cross-appeal filed by the respondent now hold that the defendant proves title by virtue of a purchase receipt Exhibit 12 a document on which no finding of fact was made by the High Court.Whether the decision of the Court of Appeal that the defendant established incidents of sale of the land under native law and custom by virtue Exhibit 12 a purchase receipt.Whether the plaintiff having secured a finding possession in respect of the land in dispute was not entitled to judgment for damages for trespass and injunction against the defendant in this case.Whether the plaintiff established his title to the land in dispute?”?

---

RATIONES DECIDENDI

---

DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE

---

s. 118 Evidence Act save documents for admission by the following words:
“The Court shall presume that every document purporting to be a power of attorney, and to have been executed before and authenticated by a Notary Public or any counsel or representative in Nigeria, or as the case may be, the President, was executed and authenticated.” Per BELGORE, JSC

---

DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE

---

It must also be stated clearly that where a party relies on documentary title there must be evidence of due execution under s. 99 Evidence Act. As the defendant/respondent never counter-claimed at the trial Court it was the duty of the defendant to prove due execution.

---

CASES CITED

---

(Jobi v. Oshilaja (1963) 1 SCNLR 31; (1963) 1 All NLR 12Nwaokafor v. Udegbe (1963) 1 SCNLR 184; (1963) I All NLR 104Cardoso v. Daniel (1986) 2 NWLR (Pt. 20) 1, 36Akeredolu v. Akinremi (1989) 3 NWLR (Pt. 108) 164, 172.

---

STATUTES REFERRED TO

---

None.

---

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT