Legalpedia Citation: (2013) Legalpedia (SC) 11473
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
HOLDEN AT ABUJA
Thu Apr 18, 2013
Suit Number: SC. 172/2004
CORAM
BODEN RHODES-VIVOUR JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
PARTIES
ISRAEL ARUM ONYEABOR ARUM APPELLANTS
OKECHUKWU NWOBODO RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
LAND LAW-DECLARATION OF TITLE TO LAND, INJUNCTION, EVIDENCE
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The suit was instituted by the Respondent who was the Plaintiff against the defendant/appellant at the Customary Court where he claimed declaration of title to land and an injunction. The defendants were dissatisfied with the judgement of the Customary Court and appealed against it to the High Court. . The defendants/appellants further appealed to the Court of Appeal which dismissed the appeal. Hence a further appeal to this court.
HELD
Appeal dismissed
ISSUES
(i)Is it right in law that the Penal (sic) of Justices of the Court of appeal that delivered the judgment was different from the Panel of Justices that heard the appeal? (ii) Was section 36 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria compiled with when Hon. Justice Sule A. Olagunju J.C.A. who did not hear the appeal made very scathing remarks against the appellants which overly influenced the judgment of his two learned Brothers? (iii) Did the plaintiff give evidence of traditional history of the land in dispute for a declaration of title to be made in his favour on that ground? (iv) Was the Court of Appeal right in law when it refused to expunge the evidence of Oko Nwobodo Nta who was not called as a witness and suo motu invoked Section 227 of the Evidence act without calling upon counsel to address it on that issue. (v) Was the Court of Appeal right in law when it upheld the decision requiring the defendants to prove their case “beyond all reasonable doubts” when no such burden was placed on the plaintiff and when the evidence led by the defendants and their witnesses was not evaluated. (vi) Was the Court of Appeal right in law when it failed to allow the appeal on the ground that the evidence of the three witnesses for the appellants was not evaluated solely because they came from the same family as the appellants when the respondents failed to address the said issue.
RATIONES DECIDENDI
CASES CITED
Uwechia vs Obi & Ors (1973) 2 SC 1 at pages 5-6; Obiamahi vs Nwosu (1972) 2 SC 15 at 17 and Omoni vs Tom (1991) 6 NWLR (Part 195) 93. Adeleke vs Aserifa (1987) 1 NWLR (Part 49) 284: Chukwuogor vs Obiora (1987) 3 NWLR (Part 61) 454 at 457; Jimoh Garuba vs Isiaka Yahaya (2007) 3 NWrLR (Part 1021) 390. Mogo Chikwendu vs Mb amah (1980) 3 SC 31;Ojomu vs Ajao (1983) 9 SC 53; Lokoyj vs Olojo (1983) 8 SC 61 Onobuchre vs Esezine (1986) 1 NWLR (Part 19) 797 at 804.Chief Falade Onisaodu & Anor vs Chief Asunmo EleM’uji & Anor (2006) 13 NWLR (Part 998) 517 Ojiegbe & Ors vs Okwaranvia Ors (1962) ALL NLR 605.Dibiamaka vs Osakwe (1989) 3 NWLR (Part 107) 101Niger Progress Ltd. vs N. E. L Corporation (1989) 3 NWLR (Part 107) 68.Nzefovu vs Nzekwu (1989) 2 NWLR (Part 104) 373OkiUi vs Isotu 14 WACA 89;Ikeakwu vs Nwankpa (1967) NMLR 224
STATUTES REFERRED TO
Section 294 (2) of the 1999 Constitution|Section 22 of the Supreme Court Act 1990|