CORAM

---

OYEBISI FOLAYEMI OMOLEYE (PJ), JUSTICE COURT OF APPEAL

JAMES SHEHU ABIRIYI, JUSTICE COURT OF APPEAL

SAIDU TANKO HUSAINI, JUSTICE COURT OF APPEAL

---

PARTIES

---

1. MADAM ADAMA KURSHAMBA2. MRS. LARABA JOHN

APPELLANTS 

---

1. ALIYU ISA2. MALIKI ISA3. MRS. AMINA ISA4. MRS. GIMBIYA

RESPONDENTS 

---

AREA(S) OF LAW

---

---

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Appellants, 1st and 2nd Respondents are cousins, while 3rd and 4th Respondents are parents of the 1st and 2nd Respondents. The father of the Appellants was uncle to the father of the 1st and 2nd Respondents who lived and grew up in his Uncle’s house; and was still living with him even after he got married. The Appellants’ father, who had no male offspring , after the marriage of the father of the 1st and 2nd Respondents gave him a portion of the adjoining land to enable him build a dwelling place in which to live with his wife. This he did and moved in with his wife, the 3rd Respondent. Father of 1st and 2nd Respondents married another wife and added a room to the initial dwelling place. Afterwards the Appellants’ father died and the father of the 1st and 2nd Respondents continued to live in the dwelling place he built with his two wives and children until he too died leaving behind two wives and fifteen (15) children. It is the land which the Appellants’ father gave to the father of 1st and 2nd Respondents to build his dwelling place on that is the subject matter of the litigation before the lower Court. The Appellants denied that the land was given to the 1st and 2nd Respondents’ father by their father. At the end of the trial, the lower Court dismissed the claim of the Appellants. Aggrieved, the Appellants approached the Court of Appeal, Yola by a Notice of Appeal containing four Grounds of Appeal.

 

---

HELD

---

Appeal Dismissed

 

---

ISSUES

---

Whether from the totality of the evidence before the Hon. Court and circumstances of this case the land given by the Appellants’ father to the Respondents’ father, was an outright gift or to last during the lifetime of the Respondents’ father. (Distilled from grounds 1, 2, and 3 of the ground of appeal).

 

---

RATIONES DECIDENDI

---

DECLARATORY RELIEFS – BASIS FOR THE GRANT OF DECLARATORY RELIEFS

---

“Declaratory reliefs are not granted as a matter of course and on a platter of gold. They are only granted when credible evidence has been led by the plaintiff or person seeking the declaratory relief. It is the practice that a declaratory relief will be granted where the plaintiff is entitled to the relief in the fullest meaning of the word. It is the law that the plaintiff must plead and prove his claim for a declaratory relief without relying on the evidence called by the defendant. Such declaratory relief is not granted even on admission by the defendant. However, there is nothing wrong in a plaintiff taking advantage of any evidence adduced by the defence which tends to establish the plaintiff’s title. See Anyaru vs. Mandilas Ltd (2007) 4 SCNJ 288, Chukwumah vs. S.P.D.C. (Nig) Ltd (1993) LPELR – 864 (SC) page 64 – 65, Matanmi & Ors vs. Dada & Anor (2013) LPELR – 19929 and Oguanuhu vs. Chiegboka (2013) 2 SCNJ 69 at 707. –

 

---

ACADEMIC QUESTIONS – ATTITUDE OF COURTS TO ACADEMIC QUESTIONS

---

“Learned counsel for the Appellants referred to a purported difference between outright gift of land inter vivos and giving of a portion of land to a family member to stay without defining these terms. It is not the business of the Court to seek to define the terms as Courts do not deal with academic or hypothetical questions. See Dickson vs. Sylva (2016) 11 SCNJ 33 at 58. –

 

---

CASES CITED

---

Not Available

 

---

STATUTES REFERRED TO

---

Not Available|

 

---

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT