SAIDU GARBA VS. FEDERAL CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION & ANOR
July 18, 2025SAMUEL AGBONIFO VS IRORORE AIWEREOBA AND ANOTHER
July 18, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (1988) Legalpedia (SC) 81196
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Fri Feb 19, 1988
Suit Number: SC 193/1985.
CORAM
TIJJANI ABUBAKAR
ALEXANDER, JUSTICE COURT OF APPEAL
AYOOLA JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
PARTIES
1 J. B. OGBECHIE2 EDWARD ADIKAKWU3 ANUKWU UMUOLU4 UKABA EMEYASIM (For themselves and on behalf of the elders and entire members of Umuolu family of Ezi) APPELLANTS
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The appellants sought a declaration of title to land and perpetual injunction restraining the respondents from acts of trespass on the said piece of land.
HELD
The Court held that in the absence of evidence and the findings of the trial judge in the issue of declaration of title and acts of ownership, the Court of appeal erred in striking out the claim for declaration of title and awarding damages for destruction of plaintiffs crops.
ISSUES
Whether on the totality of the evidence before the court in this case the plaintiffs/appellants have failed to prove their claim to a declaration of title.
Whether the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal were right when they held that section 45 of the Evidence Act Cap 62 1958 Laws of the Federation do not apply to this case having found that the plaintiffs/appellants are in possession of the land in dispute.
Whether on the concurrent findings of both the trial court and the Court of Appeal the plaintiffs/appellants have proved title to the land claimed. Consequently, the Court of Appeal should have granted them title
RATIONES DECIDENDI
ATTITUDE OF THE SUPREME COURT TO CONCURRENT FINDINGS OF LOWER COURTS.
a court of appeal must in the absence of compelling evidence indicating erroneous appraisal of facts and erroneous conclusion, show the utmost restraint and reject any temptation to interfere with well-considered findings made by the learned trial judge in the court of first instance. The restraint should be more firmly applied where the trial judge, after hearing the evidence of witnesses went on inspection of the locus in quo and saw with his own eyes the land what were in it in the search for truth in the testimonies of witnesses PER A.O. OBASEKI,JSC
POSSESSION.
When therefore it is said that the slightest possession can or is sufficient to support an action for trespass exclusive possession is implied. It is also the case with possession of chattels except where the parties own the chattels in common and one party deprives the other of his possession of the chattel by refusing him access. PER A.O. OBASEKI,JSC
CASES CITED
1. Ibenwelu v. Lawal (1971) 1 All NLR. 23
2. Idundun v. Okumagba (1976) 9-10 SC. 277
3. Okafor v. ldigo (1984) 1 SCNLR. 481
4. Karimu v. Fajube (1968) NMLR. 151
5. Ikpan v. Edoho (1978) 6-7 SC. (Reprint) 155; (1978) 6-7 SC. 221
6. Agedegudu v. Ajenifuja (1963) 1 All NLR. 109
7. Kojo v. Bonsie (1957) 1 W.L.R. 1223
8. Okpaloka v. Umeh (1976) 9-10 SC. (Reprint) 167; (1976) 9-10 SC. 269, 297
9. Thomas v. Preston Holder (1946) 12 WACA. 96
10. Nwakobi v. Nzikwu (1961) 1 All ER. at 445
STATUTES REFERRED TO
1. Court of Appeal Act 1976 No. 43
2. Evidence Act Cap 62 1958 Laws of Nigeria.
