MANAWA OGBODU V THE STATE
July 21, 2025PRINCE YAHAYA ADIGUN & ORS V. A.G OF OYO STATE AND ORS
July 21, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (1987) Legalpedia (SC) 53117
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Fri Mar 27, 1987
Suit Number: SC. 95/1986
CORAM
ESO, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
ANIAGOLU, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
UWAIS, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
COKER, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
OPUTA, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
PARTIES
IGBANUDE OBODO & ANOR (for themselves for and on behalf of Amangwu Amandim Olo,Udi Division)
APPELLANTS
EMMANUEL OGBA & 2 ORS (for themselves and on behalf of Umuafuke Amandim Olo, Udi Division)
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
LAND LAW-PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE-APPEAL
SUMMARY OF FACTS
In a 3 consolidated suits, the Court found for the Plaintiffs and awarded them the Declaration they sought, N400.00 general damages for trespass and a perpetual injunction. The 1st, 2nd, 3rd defendants in one of the suits and the plaintiffs in another, appealed. The court allowed the defendants appeal, set aside the judgment of the trial court, hence this appeal.
HELD
Allowing the appeal
ISSUES
That paragraph 9 of the Statement of Defence above is an insufficient traverse almost amounting to an admission.
That by admitting the Plaintiffs possession of the land in dispute as well as their various acts of possession the onus shifts even on the pleadings, to the Defendants, by the operation of Section 145 of the Evidence Act, to prove that the Plaintiffs possession and acts of possession were not done in their capacity as exclusive owners
RATIONES DECIDENDI
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
It is the trial Court that is charged with the responsibility of trying cases, which means trying issues. It is therefore the business of the trial Court to decide those issues and thus decide the dispute. The business of an appellate Court is not to re-open the dispute and start trying the case, as it were, de novo no, far from it. The proper function of an appellate Court is to over-see, to superintend and to review the way the dispute and the is-sues arising therefrom were tried, to see whether the trial Court used the correct procedure and/or arrived at the right and proper decision. Per Oputa JSC
WHERE A TRIAL COURT HAS PROPERLY EVALUATED THE EVIDENCE AND MADE FINDINGS OF FACT ON SUCH EVIDENCE
That where a trial Court has properly evaluated the evidence and made findings of fact on such evidence, it is no longer open to an appellate Court to embark on a fresh appraisal of the same evidence; or to disturb the findings of the trial Court, or to substitute its own views for those of the trial Court. In other words when a case is before an appellate Court there is usually a presumption that the decision of the Court below on the facts was right and the onus is on the appellant to rebut that presumption. Per Oputa JSC
DUTY OF AN APPELLATE COURT
The onus is on the appellant to satisfy the appellate Court that the decision appealed against was wrong. Where doubt exists then that onus has not been discharged. Per OPuta JSC
DUTY OF AN APPELLATE COURT
Where the appellate Court is in doubt as to whether the trial Court was right or wrong, it is bound to resolve such doubt in favour of the trial Court. Per Oputa JSC
DUTY OF AN APPELLATE COURT
An appellate Court would not descend into the arena of contest to usurp the function of the trial judge in the evaluation or assessment of evidence unless it is clear that the trial judge failed in that particular and peculiar function of his. Per Oputa JSC
ATTITUDE OF COURT TO FINDINGS ON SPECIFIC FACTS
There is a universal reluctance on the part of appellate Courts to reject a finding on specific facts particularly where such a finding is based on the demeanour, hearing or credibility of witnesses who testified before the trial Court. No appellate Court can believe or disbelieve witnesses it never saw or heard. Per Oputa JSC
CASES CITED
Lewis AND Peat (MR 1) Ltd v. Akhimien (1976) 1 All. N.L.R. 460
Akintola v. Solano (1986)2 N.W.L.R. 598 at p. 623
Atolagbe v. Shorun (1985) 1 N.W.L.R. 360.
Onyekaonwu v. Ekwubiri (1966) 1 All. N.L.R. 32.
Igboke Oroke v. Chuku Ede (1964) N.N.L.R. 118 at p.119/120. As was observed in the Australian case of da Costa v. Cockburn Salvage & Trading Property Ltd. 124 C. L.R.192
Egonu v. Egonu (1978) 11/12 S.C.11 at p.129
Ntiaro v. Akpam 3 N.L.R. 9 at p.10
Macaulay v. Tukuru 1 N.L.R. 36 at p.40.
Akinloye & anor. v. Eviyola & Ors (1968) N.M.L.R. 92 at 0.95
Obisanya v. Nwoke (1974) 6. S.C. 69 at 80;
Victor Woluchern & Ors. v. Chief Gudi & Ors. (1981) 5 S.C. 291 at p.326 to 330;
Chief Frank Ebba v. Chief Warri Ogodo (1984) 4 S.C. 84
Colonial Securities Trust Co. Ltd. v. Massey AND Ors (1896) 1 Q.B.D. 38
The Alice and the Princess Alice (1868) L. R. 2 P.C. 245 at p.252
Kuma v. Kuma 5 W.A.C.A. p.9 (Privy Council)
Maclala v. Ibok 12 W.A.C.A. at pp. 149/150
Atta v. Agyei (1952) 14 W.A.C.A. 149 at p.150
re Lart Wilkinson v. Blades (1896) 2 Ch.788,
Marbell v. Akwei and Akwei v. Cofie (1952) 14 W.A.C.A.
Wytercherly v. Andrews (1872) L. R. Courts of Probate & Divorce Volume 2 p.327
Benmax v. Austin Motor Co. Ltd. (1955) A.C. 370 at p.371 and P.375
STATUTES REFERRED TO
None.
