CORAM

---

---

PARTIES

---

MR. GRANT KAYODE YANKEY

---

FLORENCE AUSTIN

---

AREA(S) OF LAW

---

Not Available

 

---

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Claimant/Respondent was married to the Defendant/Appellant. The union went sour and the Respondent commenced proceedings for the dissolution of the marriage in the Family Court Division of the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota, United States of America. The Appellant did not contest the dissolution of the marriage. They entered into a Marital Termination Agreement. The Court entered judgment in terms of the Marital Termination Agreement. There was no plenary trial, no evidence was adduced. Their homestead at 4104 Lakeside Avenue, Brooklyn Center, Minnesota was awarded to her exclusively. However, there is a property in Nigeria situate at No. 12, Femi Akinfolarin Street, off Association Avenue Road, Ikotun, Lagos. The Respondent commenced proceedings in the High Court of Lagos State in respect of the said property, where she sought the following reliefs among others; a declaration that the Claimant is entitled with the Defendant to equal share of the property lying, being and situate at No 12, Femi Akinfolarin Street, Off Association Avenue Road, Ikotun Lagos State and covered by Certificate of Occupancy dated 21st day of August, 1990 and registered as 55/55/1990Y, in the Land Registry at Alausa, Ikeja, Lagos State, containing 2 Wings of 8 Bedroom duplex each and its appurtenances thereof; an Order of Court partitioning equally the property lying, being and situate at No. 12, Femi Akinfolarin Street, Off Association Avenue Road, Ikotun Lagos State and covered by Certificate of Occupancy dated 21st day of August, 1990 and registered as 55/55/1990Y, in the Land Registry at Alausa, Ikeja, Lagos State, containing 2 Wings of 8 Bedroom duplex each and its appurtenances thereof between the Claimant and the Defendant herein. Issues were joined on the pleadings filed and exchanged by the parties. The matter was subjected to a full dressed hearing. Testimonial and documentary evidence was adduced. In its judgment the trial Court, entered judgment in her favour. All the reliefs claimed were granted. Aggrieved by the decision of the trial Court, the Appellant has appealed before this court.

---

HELD

---

Appeal Allowed

---

ISSUES

---

Whether a Court in the United States of America has the prerequisite jurisdiction to make an order affecting a property situate in Lagos, especially when there was no claim in respect of the property before it. Whether the Court below was right in granting the reliefs sought by the Respondent having regards to the law and the preponderance of evidence before the Honourable Court.

---

RATIONES DECIDENDI

---

ISSUES – WHETHER ISSUES ARE JOINED IN THE EVIDENCE OF PARTIES

---

“Now, it is rudimentary law that the issues in an action are ascertained and based on the pleadings; so it is the Petition, Exhibit FA6 that would show the issues that were before the United States Court. In my deferential view, the lower Court was wrong to treat the Petition, Exhibit FA6, as merely showing that it was the Respondent that filed for divorce. No. Exhibit FA6, more importantly, showed the issues that were before the United States Court. In Dalek (Nig) Ltd vs. Ompadec (2007) LPELR (916) 1 at 32, Onnoghen, JSC, (later CJN) stated:
It is very important to note that it is settled law that in an action based on pleadings, issues are joined by the parties on the pleadings, issues are joined by the parties on the pleadings. It is also settled law that evidence on facts not pleaded go to on issue.
Issues are joined on the pleadings, not in the evidence: Bamgboye vs. Unilorin (1999) LPELR (737) 1 at 30-31, Longe vs. FBN Plc (2010) LPELR (1793) 1 at 23, Lewis & Peat (NRI) Ltd vs. Akhimien (1976) 7 SC 157 and Atolagbe vs. Shorun (1985) 1 NWLR (PT 2) 360 at 367.”

---

ISSUE BEFORE THE COURT – IMPLICATION OF NOT PROPERLY RAISING AN ISSUE BEFORE THE COURT

---

“It is equally hornbook law that in the determination of disputes between parties in Court, the decision must be confined to the issues properly raised by the parties. When an issue is not properly placed before the Court, the Court has no business whatsoever to deal with it. See Osolu vs. Osolu (2003) SCNJ 162 and Bankole vs. Denapo (2019) LPELR (46444) 1 at 35-36. An issue not raised before a Court is not a subject matter for adjudication before the Court: Lewis & Peat (NRI) Ltd vs. Akhimien (supra) at 169, R. Lauwers Import-Export vs. Jozebson Industries Company Ltd (1988) LPELR (2934) 1 at 40-41 and Ejindu vs. Obi (1997) LPELR (1066) 1 at 18.”

---

CONSEQUENTIAL RELIEF- WHETHER AN ISSUE THAT WAS NOT IN THE PLEADINGS BEFORE THE COURT CAN GROUND A CONSEQUENTIAL RELIEF

---

“The Respondent argued, and the lower Court agreed with her, that Exhibit FA1, the Marital Termination Agreement, which the United States Court entered as judgment in Exhibit FA2, adjudged the Lagos property to be joint property and for the same to be reserved for distribution for adjudication in a Court in Lagos State. At the expense of prolixity, I restate that issue of the Lagos property was not before the United States Court. The Respondent however argued that part of the reliefs before the lower Court and in respect of which judgment was entered was the relief for such other relief as the Court may deem just and equitable. By all odds, a Court can grant a consequential order in order to give effect to its judgment. It is a relief granted as incidental to the main relief. It is inconceivable and incomprehensible how an issue that was not in the pleadings before the Court can ground a consequential relief in the circumstances of this matter. See Awoniyi vs. Regd Trustees Of Amorc (2000) LPELR (655) 1 at 20-21, Obayagbona vs. Obazee (1972) LPELR (2159) 1 at 7-8, Eze vs. Governor Of Abia State (2014) 7 SCNJ 38 at 57 and 60 and Noekoer vs. Executive Governor Of Plateau State (2018) LPELR (43350) 1 at 41-42.”

---

EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE AND ASCRIPTION OF PROBATIVE VALUE – DUTY OF A TRIAL COURT IN EVALUATION AND ASCRIPTION OF PROBATIVE VALUE TO EVIDENCE

---

“It is the trial Court that has the duty of evaluation of evidence and ascription of probative value thereto. There is a duty on the trial Court to receive all available relevant evidence on an issue. This is perception of evidence. After that there is another duty to weigh that evidence in the context of the surrounding circumstances of the case. This is evaluation of evidence. A finding of fact will entail both perception and evaluation. See Olufosoye vs. Olorunfemi (1989) 1 SC (PT I) 29 or (1989) LPELR (2615) 1 at 9, Guardian Newspaper Ltd vs. Ajeh (2011) 10 NWLR (PT 1255) 574 at 592 and Wachukwu vs. Owunwanne (2011) LPELR (3466) 1 at 50-51. There is little or no difficulty with perception of evidence, id est, receive all available relevant evidence. Evaluation of evidence on the other hand is basically the assessment of the facts by the trial Court to ascertain which of the parties to a case before it has more preponderant evidence to sustain his claim. See Onwuka vs. Ediala (1989) 1 NWLR (PT 96) 182 at 208-209, Oyadiji vs. Olaniyi (2005) 5 NWLR (PT 919) 561 and Ameyo vs. Oyewole (2008) LPELR (3768) 1 at 9. The evaluation involves a reasoned belief of the evidence of one of the contending parties and disbelief of the other or a reasoned preference of one version to the other. A Court of trial has the duty to consider the evidence adduced in respect of any facts on which issues were joined, decide which evidence to prefer on the basis of how the evidence preponderates and then make logical and consequential findings of facts. See Adeyeye vs. Ajiboye (1987) 1 NWLR (PT 61) 432 at 451 and Stephen vs. The State (1986) 5 NWLR (PT 46) 978 at 1005.”

---

EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE- INSTANCES WHERE AN APPELLATE COURT MAY INTERFERE WITH A TRIAL COURT’S EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE

---

“The settled legal position is that where a trial Court unquestionably evaluates and justifiably appraises the facts, it is not the business of an appellate Court to substitute its own views for the views of the trial Court, however, an appellate Court can intervene where there is insufficient evidence to sustain the judgment; or where the trial Court fails to make proper use of the opportunity of seeing, hearing, and observing the witnesses; or where the findings of facts by the trial Court cannot be regarded as resulting from the evidence or where the trial Court has drawn wrong conclusions from accepted evidence or has taken an erroneous view of the evidence adduced before it or its findings are perverse in the sense that they do not flow from accepted evidence or not supported by the evidence before the Court. See FHA vs Olayemi (2017) LPELR (43376) 1 at 69-71, Edjekpo vs. Osia (2007) 8 NWLR (PT 1037) 635 or (2007) LPELR (1014) 1 at 46-47, Are vs. Ipaye (1990) LPELR (541) 1 at 22, Woluchem vs. Gudi (1981) 5 SC 291 at 320 and Fasikun II vs. Oluronke II (1999) 2 NWLR (PT589) 1 or (1999) LPELR (1248) 1 at 47-48.”

---

CASES CITED

---

Not Available

---

STATUTES REFERRED TO

---

Not Available|

---

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT

---