CORAM

---

Isaiah Olufemi Akeju Justice of the Court of Appeal

Abubakar Muazu Lamido Justice of the Court of Appeal

Jane Esienanwan Inyang Justice of the Court of Appeal

---

PARTIES

---

1. MR AJIH ENDURANCE, ESQ.

2. MR. OMINIDOUGHA WONIKIRIEBI VINCENT

3. MR. EBIOFINI T. IDOWU

APPELLANTS 

---

1. THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA

2. PROF. CHARLES QUAKER DOKUBO (The Special Adviser to the President & Coordinator of The Amnesty Programme)

RESPONDENTS 

---

AREA(S) OF LAW

---

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, HUMAN RIGHTS, ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, CIVIL PROCEDURE, EVIDENCE, EMPLOYMENT LAW, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE, CONTRACT LAW, CIVIL LITIGATION

 

---

SUMMARY OF FACTS

This case revolves around the Presidential Amnesty Programme (PAP) established by the late President Umaru Musa Yar’adua’s proclamation of June 25, 2009, for Niger Delta militants. The Appellants claimed they were documented participants of the programme from the “shoot-at-sight” camp who had undergone demobilization, rehabilitation, and reintegration at the Obubra Camp in Cross River State. They alleged that after completing their non-violence training in December 2010, they were issued certificates and identity cards with special UN code numbers that entitled them to monthly stipends of N65,000, which the Respondents had failed to pay from December 2010 to December 2017.

The Appellants instituted a suit at the Federal High Court seeking declarations that they were legitimate beneficiaries of the Amnesty Programme entitled to the monthly stipends, and orders for payment of their unpaid stipends totaling N16,380,000 or N5,460,000 for each Appellant, continued payment until the official closure of the programme, damages of N50 million, interest at 21% per annum, and costs of N3 million.

The Respondents contended that while the Appellants underwent training at Obubra Camp and received certificates and identity cards, they were not legitimate members of the “shoot-at-sight” camp and had been fraudulently included in the programme by DW1, who testified that he included them under the impacted communities 13% allocation with the caveat that they would not be entitled to the monthly stipends of N65,000 but only to educational or vocational training.

The Federal High Court dismissed the Appellants’ suit on the grounds that they failed to establish their membership in the “shoot-at-sight” camp, which was essential to their entitlement to the monthly stipends. The Court also found inconsistencies in the Appellants’ evidence. Dissatisfied with the judgment, the Appellants appealed to the Court of Appeal.

 

---

HELD

---

1. The appeal was allowed.

2. The judgment of the lower Court was set aside.

3. The Court held that the Appellants had proven on the preponderance of credible evidence that they were entitled to the monthly stipend of N65,000.

4. The Court determined that the Respondents failed to discharge the evidential burden with credible evidence to show why the Appellants were not entitled to the monthly stipend.

5. The Court awarded costs of N200,000 to the Appellants.

 

---

ISSUES

---

1. Whether the failure to call a vital witness is fatal to the case of the party who ought to call such in a civil proceeding?

2. Whether discrepancies on the face of documentary evidence can be rectified by oral evidence?

3. Whether a case can be successfully proven on the basis of an illegality?

 

---

RATIONES DECIDENDI

---

BURDEN OF PROOF – THE ONUS ON PLAINTIFFS SEEKING DECLARATORY RELIEFS

---

It is settled that a Claimant must provide credible and cogent evidence to be entitled to the declaratory reliefs he seeks; the Court does not grant declaratory reliefs on admission by the Defendant(s) or in default of pleadings. The Claimant must succeed on the strength of his case and not on the weakness of the defence unless there is an aspect of the defendant’s case that supports his case. The standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities. – Per JANE ESIENANWAN INYANG, JCA

 

---

DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE – IMPORTANCE OF DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE TO VERIFY ORAL TESTIMONY

---

Bare averments without documentary proof will not suffice as documentary evidence is the hangar upon which to test the veracity of the oral testimony of a witness. – Per JANE ESIENANWAN INYANG, JCA

 

---

BALANCE OF PROBABILITIES – STANDARD OF PROOF IN CIVIL CASES

---

Civil cases are decided on the balance of preponderance and the Court is expected to place the evidence adduced by either party on a scale to see which side outweighs the other in order to ascertain which side is to be believed.– Per JANE ESIENANWAN INYANG, JCA

 

---

ADMISSION AGAINST INTEREST – WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE FROM OPPOSITION’S WITNESS

---

Admissions made by witnesses of the Defendants is an admission against interest and cannot be inconsequential. Evidence of a witness against a party who has called him is admissible against such party and is weighty. An admission against interest arises where a witness called by a party gives evidence that supports the case of the opponent of that party and when such party does not treat him as a hostile witness, his opponent is well entitled to rely on the admission to reinforce his case. – Per JANE ESIENANWAN INYANG, JCA

 

---

ADMITTED FACTS – NEED FOR FURTHER PROOF

---

Facts admitted need no further proof. – Per JANE ESIENANWAN INYANG, JCA

 

---

PROOF OF ILLEGALITY – STANDARD OF PROOF REQUIRED

---

The facts of deceit, illegality and denial by the camp leadership were facts alleged by the Defendants which require proof beyond reasonable doubt. To shift the burden on the Plaintiffs is improper as the Defendants who asserted the facts failed to prove same but rather called witnesses who gave evidence in support of the Plaintiffs’ case.– Per JANE ESIENANWAN INYANG, JCA

 

---

CONTRADICTIONS AND DISCREPANCIES – WHEN CONTRADICTIONS ARE MATERIAL

---

To ‘earn’ as used in Exhibit G may mean ‘to generate’ or ‘produce’. As explained by the witness, it was not a contradiction as held by the Learned Trial Judge but a discrepancy. – Per JANE ESIENANWAN INYANG, JCA

 

---

PERVERSE FINDINGS – WHEN A JUDGE DESCENDS INTO THE ARENA

---

The finding of the Learned Trial Judge is perverse because he descended into the arena by including the word, ‘throughout’ to the evidence of the witness to arrive at the conclusion that there was contradiction in the evidence of the Plaintiffs.– Per JANE ESIENANWAN INYANG, JCA

 

---

MAKING A CASE FOR A PARTY – IMPROPRIETY OF JUDICIAL INTERVENTION

---

The findings of contradictions by the Learned Trial Judge was tantamount to making a case for the Defendants/Respondents outside the evidence of the Plaintiffs on record thereby a miscarriage of justice was occasioned to the Plaintiffs. – Per JANE ESIENANWAN INYANG, JCA

 

---

EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE – COURT’S DUTY IN EVALUATING EVIDENCE

---

The Learned Trial Judge improperly evaluated the evidence led which occasioned a miscarriage of justice. The findings of the Learned Trial Judge which did not relate to the evidence led are against the weight of evidence and perverse. The Court is enjoined to intervene and re-evaluate the evidence on record. – Per JANE ESIENANWAN INYANG, JCA

 

---

VITAL WITNESS – WHEN A WITNESS IS CONSIDERED VITAL

---

Bipore Azude was a vital witness as he had knowledge of disputed facts. – Per JANE ESIENANWAN INYANG, JCA

 

---

PLEADINGS – BINDING NATURE OF PLEADINGS ON PARTIES

---

Parties are bound by their pleadings and any evidence which is at variance with the averments in the pleadings goes to no issue. – Per JANE ESIENANWAN INYANG, JCA

 

---

ENTITLEMENT TO BENEFITS – PROOF OF ENTITLEMENT TO GOVERNMENT BENEFITS

---

Upon review of the evidence adduced by the parties before the lower Court to shed light on this vexing point, I am of the considered view that the Appellants proved on the preponderance of credible evidence that they were entitled to the monthly stipend of N65,000.00 (sixty five thousand naira). – Per JANE ESIENANWAN INYANG, JCA

 

---

CASES CITED

---

---

STATUTES REFERRED TO

---

1. Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended)

2. Evidence Act, 2011

3. Presidential Amnesty Proclamation of 25th June, 2009

 

---

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT 

---