MR. EZEKIEL THOMAS & ANOR VS HAJIYA RAKIYA SANI & ORS

CORAM

JAMES S. ABIRIYI

PARTIES

MR. EZEKIEL THOMAS

HAJIYA RAKIYA SANI

AREA(S) OF LAW

SUMMARY OF FACTS

By an amended writ of summons, the Plaintiffs/Respondents claimed against the Defendants/ Appellants a declaration that the Defendants’ refusal to hand over to the Plaintiffs’ the Skills Acquisition Center lying and situate at adjacent to the gate of Jolly Nyame Garden City Estate, Mile Six for the training of community women is wrongful, oppressive and illegal; an order of this Honourable Court compelling the Defendants’ to hand over to the Plaintiffs’ the Skills Acquisition Center; an order of perpetual injunction restraining the Defendants’, their privies, representatives and agents from further locking up, interfering and or doing anything whatsoever and howsoever prejudicial to the interest and holding of the Plaintiffs’ on the Skills Acquisition Center. Alternatively, the Plaintiffs/Respondents sought an order compelling the Defendants’ to pay the 1st Plaintiff the sum of Seven Million Naira (N7, 000,000.00) and (?5,000,000.00) being the value of her land and interest to be paid on the loan obtained from the Micro-Finance Bank for the purchase of the land and general damages respectively. At the conclusion of trial, the lower court entered judgment in favour of the Respondents. Dissatisfied, the Appellants filed their Notice of Appeal.

HELD

Appeal Dismissed

ISSUES

Whether the 1st Respondent had by the production of Exhibits P2, P3, P9, P10 and P11 proved her title to the land in dispute to be entitled to Judgment before the lower Court or not”

RATIONES DECIDENDI

ADMISSIBILITY OF A DOCUMENT –WHETHER OR NOT A PARTY WHO FAILS TO RAISE AN OBJECTION TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF A DOCUMENT TENDERED BY AN OPPOSITE PARTY CAN RAISE AN ISSUE ON THE ADMISSION OF SUCH DOCUMENT SUBSEQUENTLY.

“The law is trite and well settled too, that if party fails to raise objection to the admissibility of a document tendered by an opposite party, the person/party who fails to object to the admission of such document, cannot later raise the issue of admission of the document by the trial Court at the appellate Court. See Alade vs Olukade (1976) 2 SC 183 at 119; Bredro Nigeria Limited vs. Shyanto Nigeria Limited & Ors. (2016) LPELR 40205 (CA); Oseni vs. State (2012) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1193) 351; Archibong vs. The State (2006) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1000) 349/ 377 378; Union Bank vs. Samson Moronfoye (2017) LPELR 43164; Udo vs. State (2016) LPELR 40721 (SC). Raimi v Akintoye (1986) 3 NWLR (Pt.26) 97 and Anagbado v. Faruk (2018) LPELR-44909 (SC). The doctrine of estoppel by conduct is even applicable in such a situation.

CERTIFICATION OF DOCUMENTS – WHETHER OR NOT PRIVATE DOCUMENTS REQUIRES CERTIFICATION

“These documents exhibited or tendered to my mind even though photocopies, they do not require any certification since they are not public documents in accordance with Section 102 of the Evidence Act, 2011 requiring certification but are rather private documents in accordance with Section 103 of the Evidence Act, 2011 which in law, do not require any certification since they are correspondences between Hajiya Jamila and government officials or agencies. See the case of Anagbado v. Faruk (supra).

ADMISSIBILITY OF DOCUMENTS – WHETHER A PIECE OF EVIDENCE ADMISSIBLE IN EVIDENCE UNDER THE EVIDENCE ACT CAN BE RENDERED INADMISSIBLE IN EVIDENCE BY ANY LAW ENACTED BY THE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY OF ANY STATE

“The Land Registration Law, CAP 75, Laws of Taraba State, 1997 cannot regulate the admissibility of documents made admissible under the Evidence Act, 2011. By the express provision of Section 4(2) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) it is clear that it is only the National Assembly that has the power to legislate on matters bordering on evidence. In the case of A.G. Federation V. A.G. Lagos State (2013) LPELR 20974 (SC), the Supreme Court held thus:
“The Constitution itself has given the interpretation of the terms “Exclusive Legislative List” and “Concurrent Legislative List”, Whereas the former refers to the “List” in Part 1 of the Second Schedule to the Constitution, the latter refers to the “List” of matters set out in the First Column in part 11 of the Second Schedule to the Constitution with respect to which the National Assembly and House of Assembly may make laws to the extent prescribed, respectively, opposite thereto in the second column thereof, The exclusivity referred to in the Exclusive Legislative List, although not comprehensively defined, may, perhaps, refer to a point where the enactment in question is capable of excluding all others, shutting out other considerations not shared by or divided between others. The enactment is sole and single in its form and application as appropriated by its exclusive right. See:-
Therefore, apart from the National Assembly, no other legislative assembly whether of state or Local Government (if any) can legally and effectively legislate on any matter listed under the exclusive Legislative List.
As for the Concurrent Legislative List, it is clear that both the National and State Assemblies can competently legislate on a matter concurrently having at the back of the legislators’ mind, the operation of the doctrine of covering the field (as summed up earlier), ”
See also the case of A. G. Lagos State v. Eko Hotels Ltd. & Anor. (2006) LPELR 3161 (SC).
It follows therefore, that even if Exhibits P9, PIO, and P11 were made inadmissible by the Land Registration Law, CAP 75, Laws of Taraba State, 1997, since they are admissible under the Evidence Act, 2011, they cannot be made inadmissible in law.
The Supreme Court in the case of Anagbado v. Faruk (2018) LPELR 44909 (SC), while interpreting similar provision, held thus:
“The Appellant had made an issue of whether Exhibit P2, the letter of offer issued to the Respondent, was a registrable document which must be previously registered under the Kaduna State lands Registration Law Cap 85 Laws of Kaduna State, 1991 before it would be admissible in evidence. Section 15 of the said Law, Cap, 85, provides:
No instruments shall be pleaded or given in evidence in any Court as affecting any land unless the same shall have been registered in the proper office as specified in Section 3.
The purport of this law, as argued by the Appellant, is that a registrable land instrument, which though is a material and relevant piece of evidence under the Evidence Act, 2011 which has not been so registered under the Law Cap 85 is not admissible in evidence in any Court of Law. The argument neither impresses nor convinces me. The Law Cap, 85 of Kaduna State (Section 15 thereof), in so far as it purports to render inadmissible any material and relevant piece of evidence that is admissible in evidence under the Evidence Act, 2011, is to that extent inconsistent with the Evidence Act, enacted by the National Assembly pursuant to the powers vested in it by Section 4(2) of the Constitution and Item 23 of the Exclusive Legislative List set out in Part r of the Second Schedule to the Constitution, Evidence is Item 23 in the Exclusive Legislative List. I am of the firm view that, in view of Section 4(5) of the Constitution read with Section 4(2) and Item 23 of the Exclusive Legislative List set out in Part I of the Second Schedule to the Constitution, in the event of Section 15 of the Law Cap, 85 of Kaduna State being in conflict or inconsistent with any provisions of the Evidence Act, the provisions of the Evidence Act shall prevail, The sum total of all I am saying, on this issue, is that Section 15 of the Kaduna State Law Cap 85 cannot render inadmissible Exhibit P2, which evidence is material, relevant and admissible in evidence under the Evidence Act, 2011. A piece of evidence admissible in evidence under the Evidence Act cannot be rendered inadmissible in evidence by any law enacted by the House of Assembly of any State.”