CORAM

---

UZO I. NDUKWE-ANYANWU

UZO I. NDUKWE-ANYANWU

UZO I. NDUKWE-ANYANWU

UZO I. NDUKWE-ANYANWU

UZO I. NDUKWE-ANYANWU

UZO I. NDUKWE-ANYANWU

UZO I. NDUKWE-ANYANWU

UZO I. NDUKWE-ANYANWU

UZO I. NDUKWE-ANYANWU

UZO I. NDUKWE-ANYANWU

UZO I. NDUKWE-ANYANWU

UZO I. NDUKWE-ANYANWU

UZO I. NDUKWE-ANYANWU

UZO I. NDUKWE-ANYANWU

UZO I. NDUKWE-ANYANWU

UZO I. NDUKWE-ANYANWU

UZO I. NDUKWE-ANYANWU

UZO I. NDUKWE-ANYANWU

UZO I. NDUKWE-ANYANWU

UZO I. NDUKWE-ANYANWU

UZO I. NDUKWE-ANYANWU

UZO I. NDUKWE-ANYANWU

UZO I. NDUKWE-ANYANWU

UZO I. NDUKWE-ANYANWU

---

PARTIES

---

JAMES AUDU

---

HAJIYA HABIBA LAWAN NGURU

---

AREA(S) OF LAW

---

---

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Appellant advertised two plots of land situate at Musari Dubai Ward in Maiduguri which were up for sale to the Respondent. The plots were going for the sum of N150, 000.00 each. It was clear that he was not the owner or seller of the land. The Respondent indicated her interest in purchasing the plots of land and so sent her house-help, one Suleiman (now deceased), to accompany the Appellant and inspect the advertised land. She then authorized Suleiman to pay the Appellant the total sum of N300, 000.00 for the plots, which he did. Upon payment, the Appellant gave the Respondent the document of title over the land, Exhibit PW1A before the trial Court. The Respondent contended that she was subsequently unable to develop the plots of land due to the insurgency in the area. When calm was restored and the Respondent visited the plots, she discovered that a fence had been erected around them and they were being developed. After making efforts to recover the plots, which she had paid for through the Appellant to no avail, she reported the matter to the Police, alleging fraud. The Appellant, upon being invited by the Police to answer to the allegation, wrote an undertaking (Exhibit PW4A) wherein he promised to show the Respondent the location of the two plots. Subsequently, the Respondent filed a suit before the High Court of Justice Borno State, wherein she claimed against the Appellant a declaration that the Defendant having led the Claimant into believing and trusting him, and paying ?300, 000.00, for the two plots he advertised to her has a duty to identify and show the two lands to the Claimant, an order of refund of the purchase price paid to the Appellant and general damages in the sum of N 500,000.00. The Appellant denied the claim and filed an Amended Statement of defence in that regard. At the close of trial and final addresses of Counsel for both parties on their behalf, the learned trial Judge delivered Judgement in favour of the Respondent/Plaintiff. Therein, he ordered the Appellant to refund the purchase price of N300, 000.00 paid by the Respondent through him for the two plots of land; and awarded cost of N30, 000.00 to the Respondent. Peeved by the outcome of the action, the Appellant filed a Notice of Appeal wherein he sought the setting aside of the judgment of the lower court, an order to re-hear the suit among others.

---

HELD

---

Appeal Allowed

---

ISSUES

---

Whether it was proper to enter Judgement without evaluating the evidence and resolving the issues formulated for determination of the Court.

---

RATIONES DECIDENDI

---

EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE – STATUS OF THE DECISION OF A TRIAL COURT ON ITS FAILURE TO EVALUATE EVIDENCE PLACED BEFORE IT

---

“It is perceptible from this brusque excerpt which forms the nucleus of the Judgement, that the lower Court did not make any attempt to evaluate the evidence placed before it, much less arriving at a conclusion on its probative value. Instead, it simply reproduced the entire assessment of the evidence as presented by both Counsel in their final addresses, and then preferred that of the Respondent’s Counsel. With due respect, this was injudicious. It also smacks of a wilful neglect of the primary judicial duty imposed on the trial Judge by law. By so doing, the trial Court surrendered its sacred adjudicative function to Counsel. The law does not give it the liberty to do that. In the eyes of the law, that imprudent judicial act is pregnant with dire consequences. Thus, the trial Court failed in his avowed duty to evaluate the evidence before it. Therefore, its decision and orders are perverse – Ihunwo V Ihunwo (2013) LPELR-20084(SC); Ovunwo V Woko (2011) 17 NWLR (pt. 1277) 522, 547, per Chukwuma-Eneh, JSC.

---

EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE – WHAT DOES EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE ENTAILS?- EFFECT OF A TRIAL COURT’S FAILURE TO EVALUATE EVIDENCE

---

“The evaluation of evidence is a critical process in the adjudication of disputes. It involves the reviewing and analyzing of the evidence presented in a case with a view to ascribing value towards arriving at a decision. A Court must perform this sacred duty of evaluating evidence in order to ensure its veracity and/or authenticity as well as weight. In carrying out this function, the Court should state in clear terms its findings based on such a proper exercise of evaluation and the ascription of probative value. The legal position is that a Court cannot resolve the conflict(s) between parties without evaluating conflicting evidence presented to it and arriving at a just decision.
Thus, any failure to evaluate evidence will not only vitiate the findings of such a Court but will also give the appellate Court the authority to step in to evaluate and make proper findings. However, this is only possible where the evidence in regard to the oral testimony of witnesses and findings of fact do not depend on the credibility of witnesses. See Iheakim V FBN Plc (2017) LPELR-43545(CA) 12; Tukur V Uba (2012) LPELR-9337(SC); Jimoh V Akande (2009) 1 SCM 34; Okomalu V Akinbode (2006) 9 NWLR (Pt. 985) 338; FSB Int. Bank V Imano (Nig.) (2000) 11 NWLR (Pt. 679) 626.

---

EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE – DUTY OF AN APPELLATE COURT WHERE A TRIAL COURT FAILS TO EVALUATE EVIDENCE ADDUCED IN A CASE

---

“The law is settled that the duty of evaluating the evidence adduced in a case and ascribing probative value thereto lies within the bosom of the trial Court. Thus, an appellate Court does not unduly interfere with the findings of the trial Court where such has been dutifully carried out. However, where a trial Court fails in its duty to evaluate the evidence adduced, an appellate Court does not play the role of a helpless onlooker and is bound to interfere with the findings of the trial Court where a refusal to do so will occasion injustice. The appellate Court should certainly intervene and do what justice requires. It must not abdicate its own responsibility and rubber stamp an error however glaring. See Deputy Sheriff, Kaduna State High Court V Keystone Bank (2015) LPELR-25876(CA) 20-21, F-D; Lawal V Dawodu (1972) 8-9 SC 83, 114-115. Thus, pursuant to Section 15 of the Court of Appeal Act, 2004, this Court is obliged to step into the shoes of the trial Court to evaluate the evidence on Record and make proper findings thereto”.

---

CAUSE OF ACTION – MEANING OF A CAUSE OF ACTION

---

“It is settled law that a cause of action is the bundle or aggregate of facts which the law will recognise as giving the plaintiff a substantive right to make the claim against the relief or remedy being sought. Thus, the factual situation on which the Plaintiff relies to support his claim must be recognized by law as giving rise to a substantive right capable of being claimed or enforced against the defendant. In other words, the factual situation relied upon must constitute the essential ingredients of an enforceable right or claim. See Egbe V Adefarasin (1987) LPELR-1032(SC) 32, D-E, per Oputa, JSC; Cookey V Fombo (2005) LPELR-895(SC) 19-20, F-A, per Edozie, JSC; Atiba Iyalamu Savings & Loans Ltd V Suberu (2018) LPELR-44069(SC) 43-45, F-B, per Kekere-Ekun, JSC.

---

FRAUD – DEFINITION OF FRAUD

---

Fraud is defined as a wilful act on the part of anyone whereby another is sought to be deprived by illegal or inequitable means of what he is entitled to. It means a deliberate deception intended to gain advantage. For the purpose of civil law, fraud includes acts, omissions and concealment by which an undue and unconscientious advantage was taken of another – Union Bank of Nigeria V Ironbar Esq. (2010) LPELR-5057(CA) 28, B-C, per Ngwuta, JCA (as he then was); Umanah V Obong Attah (2006) LPELR-3356(SC) 40, C-E, per Onnoghen, JSC; Adimora V Ajufo (1988) LPELR-182(SC) 16, E-G, per Oputa , JSC; Onuchukwu V Nnoli (2013) 21223(CA) 19, C-A”.

---

BURDEN OF PROOF – NATURE OF THE BURDEN OF PROOF IN CIVIL MATTERS

---

“The foundation upon which civil matters are predicated upon is that, he who asserts must prove. That burden of proof, unlike in criminal proceedings is not static. The clear wordings of Section 132 of the Evidence Act, 2011 provides that the burden of proof in a suit or proceeding lies on that person who would fail if no evidence at all were given on either side. Thus, by Section 133 of the Act (supra), the burden of first proving the existence or non-existence of a fact lies on the party against whom the Judgment of the Court would be given if no evidence were produced on either side, regard being had to any presumption that may arise on the pleadings. Further still, by Section 136 of the Act (supra), the burden of proof as to any particular fact lies on that person who wishes the Court to believe in its existence”.

---

CASES CITED

---

Not Available

---

STATUTES REFERRED TO

---

Court of Appeal Act, 2004|Evidence Act, 2011|

---

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT