Legalpedia Citation: (2010) Legalpedia (CA) 16885
In the Court of Appeal
Thu May 20, 2010
Suit Number: CA/J/45/2006
CORAM
ALOYSIUS IYORGYER KATSINA-ALU JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL (Presided)
ALOYSIUS IYORGYER KATSINA-ALU JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL (Presided)
ALOYSIUS IYORGYER KATSINA-ALU JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL (Presided)
ALOYSIUS IYORGYER KATSINA-ALU JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL (Presided)
PARTIES
MR. EDWARD DALOBA APPELLANTS
1. ESTHER S. RIPIYE
2. FATIMA A. SANI
3. DIYASE MAISALATU
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The Plaintiffs/Respondents sued the Defendant/Appellant at the High Court claiming declaratory and injunctive reliefs; that the Defendant is a trespasser, that the 1st Plaintiff is entitled to statutory right of occupancy over the land in dispute, an order of perpetual injunction restraining the Defendant, his agents, privies, heirs, legal and personal representative from further acts of trespass on the land in dispute and N251,000.00 special damage being the cost of materials and work done on land that were destroyed by the Defendant/Appellant. At the close of the Defendant/Appellant’s case, he did not address the Court, consequently, the Plaintiff did not reply. The trial court after due consideration of the arguments and evaluation of evidence adduced by the parties entered judgment in favor of the Plaintiffs/Respondents. Being dissatisfied with the judgment, the Defendant/Appellant filed an appeal before the Court of Appeal challenging the said decision.
HELD
Appeal Dismissed
ISSUES
1. Having regard to the pleadings and the oral evidence produced at the trial, can it be said with certainty that the Respondents did proved the identity and extent of the land’ in dispute to support the decision arrived at by the trial Court in favour of the Respondent?
2. Did the 1st Respondent prove her root of title to the land in dispute in accordance with the law to support the decision of the trial Court in her favour?
3. In the absence of evidence of the 1st Respondent’s workmen on the land coupled with the failure of the learned trial Judge to visit the locus in quo, can it be rightly said that the purported acts of harassment and trespass alleged against the Appellant by the 1st Respondent proved to support the judgment of the trial Court on the issue of trespass and harassment, having regard to the provision of Section 138(1) of the Evidence Act?
4. Whether the award of two hundred thousand (N200, 000.00) general damages for trespass and ten thousand (N10, 000.00) naira costs against the Appellant was not excessive having regard to the circumstances of the case and the factors relied upon by the Court in making the awards?
5. Having regard to the several adverse comments made by the learned trial Judge against and concerning the Appellant as a person, his case and his witnesses in the entire trial, could the Judge no be said to have been influenced by bias against the Appellant in arriving at the decision in the matter before him?
6. Is the learned trial Judge right in law to have held that Dauda was not called to testify for the Appellant and no agreement was tendered by the Appellant linking the said transaction with the disputed land when it was the trial Judge that ordered the closure of the Appellant’s case pre-maturely?
RATIONES DECIDENDI
CASES CITED
STATUTES REFERRED TO
1. Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999
2. Evidence Act
3. Taraba State High Court (Civil Procedure Rules 1997)