IBRAHIM MULI VS SALI AKWAI

“Courts of trial are expected to carry out their sacred duties of review, evaluation and appraisal, as ascription of probative values, when determining cases presented before them, so that as much as possible, cases are decided on admissible and credible evidence. The receipt of relevant evidence is an act of perception, while the evaluation of evidence and findings of facts by a trial Court involves both perception and evaluation. A trial Court that fails in this duty, fails in its duty of being an impartial arbiter in the adversarial system of the administration of justice – Guardian Newspaper V Ajeh (2011) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1256) 574, 582. Thus the evaluation of relevant and material evidence and ascription of probative value to such evidence, both oral and documentary, are the primary functions and within the domain of the trial Court which saw, heard and assessed the witnesses.

Per J.H.SANKEY, J.C.A

“In carrying out the evaluation of evidence, a Court is not to merely review or restate the evidence, but it is expected to critically appraise it in the light of the facts in issue, what is relevant, admissible and what weight is to be attached. In other words, the evaluation of evidence is much more critical, crucial and tasking than a mere review of evidence. For unlike the review of evidence, its actual evaluation involves a reasonable belief of the evidence of one of the contending parties and disbelief of the other, or the reasoned preference of one version to the other. There must be an indication on the record of the Court to show how the trial Court arrived at its conclusion preferring one piece of evidence to the other. Thus, the act of reaching conclusions by drawing necessary inference is a product of a legal mind and not an indulgence in speculation – Aregbesola V Olagunsoye (2011) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1253) 458; Olonade V Sowemimo (2014) 9 SCM 106, 121, per MD Muhammad, JSC; Michael V Access Bank (2017) LPELR-41981(CA)13”.

Per J.H.SANKEY, J.C.A

“This sacred duty of the trial Court is rarely interfered with by the appellate Court where the trial Court does such a duty diligently. Where however a trial Court fails in its bounden duty of evaluating and ascribing probative value to the evidence adduced before it, or where the findings and conclusions are perverse, the Court of Appeal will not hesitate in taking over from the trial Court this duty in the interest of justice, thereby doing what the trial Court failed to do – Dauda V Access Bank Plc (2016) All FWLR (Pt. 831) 1489, 1513; Idogbo V Ajayi (2017) LPELR-42435(CA) 17. In the instant case, I absolutely agree with the Appellant that the learned trial Judge failed in his duty to evaluate the evidence placed before the trial Court and to ascribe probative value thereto, before preferring one version to the other. Consequently, this is a compelling circumstance which the law requires that I intervene as an appellate Court to do that which the learned trial Judge failed to do – BFI Group Corp. V BPE (2012) 7 SC (Pt. III) 1.

Per J.H.SANKEY, J.C.A

“The law is trite that in claims for declaration of title to land, there are five recognised ways of proving ownership of and title to a piece of land; and they are: (a) by traditional history of the land which includes modes of acquisition of same by deforestation of the virgin forest by the first settler, conquest of the original owners through acts of war, gifts, etc; (b) by production of documents of title to the land; (c) acts of possession; (d) acts of selling or leasing portions of the land; and proof of possession of connected or adjacent land – Odunze V Nwosu (2007) LPELR-2252(SC) 67, C-F, per Onnoghen, JSC; Idundun V Okumagba (1976) 9-10 SC 227; Omoregie V Idugiemwanye (1985) 2 NWLR (Pt. 5) 41; Duru V Nwosu (1989) LPELR-968(SC) 33”.

Per J.H.SANKEY, J.C.A

One of these five methods or ways of proof of title is by traditional history of the land which includes modes of acquisition of same by deforestation of the virgin forest by the first settler and by proof of acts of long possession on and over the land in issue”.

Per J.H.SANKEY, J.C.A

“Finally, on the issue of long possession, the law is settled that long possession alone cannot imbue title on a claimant where he is unable to prove his root of title and more so, in the face of a person who is in possession and asserts ownership of the land”.

Per J.H.SANKEY, J.C.A