STANDARD (NIG) ENGINEERING CO LTD & ANOR VS NIGERIAN BANK FOR COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY
June 6, 2025TUNDE ADAVA V THE STATE
June 6, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (2006-02) Legalpedia 22818 (SC)
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Abuja
Fri Feb 24, 2006
Suit Number: SC.232/2001
CORAM
I. L. KUTIGI JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
A. I. KATSINA-ALU JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
U. A. KALGO JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
W. S. N. ONNOGHEN JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
G. A. OGUNTADE JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
PARTIES
KAMALDEEN TOYIN FAGBENRO
APPELLANTS
GANYIYEWHE AROBADI
AHOTIN AROBADI
OKE AROBADI
CHIEF DEUMOH BALOGUN TOWOLANI (For themselves and on behalf of AINA AROBADI FAMILY)
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE BY TRIAL COURT -WHETHER COURT OF APPEAL CAN SUBSTITUTE SAME WITH ITS
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The appeal is against the judgment of the court of Appeal which set aside the judgment of the trial court which held that the plaintiff/respondent failed to prove his case in a dispute over a piece of land. It is against this backdrop that the defendant/appellant has filed the appeal.
HELD
Appeal allowed.
ISSUES
1. Whether the Court of Appeal rightly interpreted and applied the evidence of the 2nd DW which was given in Yoruba Language and translated into English Language as meaning that the appellant bought the land in dispute from the “offsprings” of the respondents.
2. Whether the Court of Appeal was right in setting aside the finding of the trial court on Exhibit D.
3. Whether on the evidence before the court, the appellant discharged the burden of proof on him by preponderance of evidence.
4. Whether the Court of Appeal properly construed Exhibit “D” which they held to be “patently ambiguous”.
RATIONES DECIDENDI
OWNERSHIP OF LAND
“Where a defendant in his pleading admitted that the plaintiff was the original owner of the land in dispute, the onus was on him to establish that the plaintiff had made an absolute grant of the land to him”. (Per G.A. Oguntade JSC)
EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE BY TRIAL COURT
“It is settled law that where a court of trial unquestionably evaluates the evidence and appraises the facts, it is not the business of a court of appeal to substitute its own views for the views of the trial court”. (Per G.A. Oguntade JSC)
CASES CITED
1. Atanda V. Ajani (199) 3 NWLR (pt. 111) 511.
2. Ajero V. Ugorji (1999) 10 NWLR (pt. 621) 1.
3. Okeke V. Agbodike (1999) 14 NWLR (pt. 638) 215
4. O.K.O. Mogaji & ors. V. Cadbury Nigeria Ltd. & Ors. (1985) 7 S.C. 59
5. Mosalewa Thomas V. Preston Holder (1946) 12 W.A.CA. 78 at 80
6. Kosile V. Folarin (1989) 3 NWLR (pt. 107) page 1.
7. Buraimoh V. Bamgbose (1989) NWLR (part 109) P 352 .
8. Akintoye & Anor. V. Eyiyola & Ors. (1968) N.M.L.R. 92 .
9. Balogun & Ors. V. Agoola (1974) 1 All N.R.L. (Pt. 4) 61 .
10. Folarunso V. Adeyemi (1975) N.M.L.R. 128.
11. Chief Victor Wloluchem & Ors. V. Chief Simon Gudi (1981) 5 S.C. 291 at 326.
STATUTES REFERRED TO
