JINADU AJAO & ORS VS BELLO ADIGUN

CORAM

S.M.A BELGORE JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

A.B. WALI JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

I.L. KUTIGI JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

E.O. OGWUEGBU JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

S.U. MOHAMMED JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

PARTIES

JINADU AJAO & ORS

APPELLANTS

BELLO ADIGUN

RESPONDENTS

AREA(S) OF LAW

EVIDENCE – REGISTRABLE INSTRUMENTS-THE LANDS INSTRUMENT REGISTRATION LAW-WRONGFUL ADMISSION OF DOCUMENT

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The trial court rejected a document under which the parties sets out the right to the land in dispute on the ground that it was not registered and refused to visit to locos when moved to.

HELD

The court held that the document was not caught by the Land Instrument registration law and that the trial court should have visited the locus in quo in view of the confusion in the description of the land.

ISSUES

1. Whether the exclusion of the document marked ‘A’ rejected by the learned trial Judge was wrongful. If the answer is in the affirmative, whether the wrongful exclusion of the document is sufficient to justify the Court of Appeal sending the case back for re-trial.

2. Whether the learned trial Judge exercised his discretion judicially when he refused the respondent’s application to visit the land in dispute.

RATIONES DECIDENDI

MEANING OF “INSTRUMENT” UNDER THE LAND INSTRUMENT REGISTRATION LAW

‘The definition of “instrument” for the purpose of Land Instrument Registration Law is very clear. There must be a party within the meaning of the Law called or regarded as “grantor” who “confers, transfers, limits, charges or extinguishes in favour or another” “also called and known within the same Law as “grantee.’ Per Belgore J.S.C

VISIT TO THE LOCUS

‘It is in the discretion of the Court to accede to an application to visit the scene but such discretion should be exercised judicially and must be acceded to If only so doing will give certainty to the land the parties refer to .’ Per Belgore J.S.C