MEMUDU AJIBOYE VS ALHAJI OLOYEDE ISHOLA
June 5, 2025PRINCE ASHIMIU ISIAKA & ORS v. SAIDI OGUNDIMU & ORS
June 5, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (2006-06) Legalpedia 12442 (SC)
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Abuja
Fri Jun 16, 2006
Suit Number: SC.261/2000
CORAM
S. M. BELGORE JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
PARTIES
MR. MOSES
MR. THOMPSON BUNGE (For themselves and on behalf of Abua in Abua Odua Local Govt. Area of Rivers State)
APPELLANTS
THE GOVERNOR OR RIVERS STATE RESPONDENTS
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF RIVERS STATE
CHIEF MAJOR JOB UMAH
CHIEF OGU UKWU
MOSES RICHARD UKWU
ASELEMI VICTOR UKWU (For themselves and on behalf of Agana family of Omalem in Abua in the Abua Local Govt. Area of Rivers State)
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
CHIEFTAINCY TITLE BASED ON NATIVE LAW AND CUSTOM – BURDEN OF PROOF WHERE ISSUES ARE NOT JOINED ON AN ISSUE
EVIDENCE- ONUS OF PROOF WHERE DEFENDANT ADMITS THE CLAIM OF PLAINTIFF.
CONCURRENT FINDING OF THE TWO LOWER COURTS-WHEN WILL BE INTERFERED WITH BY THE SUPREME COURT.
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The appellant sued in the trial court for a declaration that the chieftaincy title was hereditary and they were the only ones entitled to same. The appellant’s case was dismissed by the trial court and affirmed by the court of appeal. The appellant has further appealed to the Supreme Court
HELD
Appeal allowed.
ISSUES
1. Having agreed to the crucial issue of fact that Obunge or Obunga of appellant was at a time the king or Head Chief of Abua contrary to the finding of the trial judge, coupled with the admission of the original 3rd respondent that he is a priest together with the content of exhibit ‘E’, was the Court of Appeal right to have dismissed appellants’ appeal?
2. Did the lower court consider all the issues raised in the appeal to the court?
3. How relevant were the contradictions of PW1 and PW2 to the central issues for determination having regard to the finding of the lower court as well as the admissions made by the respondents during the trial?
4. Was there any basis to compare the case put forward by appellants as ‘its like a tale told by an idiot full of sound and fury but signifying nothing’ when from the finding that Obunge of appellants was at a time King of Abua, appellants made a good case?
RATIONES DECIDENDI
WHEN PARTIES AGREE ON SOME FACTS
“It is of cardinal importance in civil litigations to bear in mind that when parties have in their pleadings agreed on some facts, there is no issue in dispute between them on such agreed matters”. (Per Oguntade JSC)
AN ONUS OF PROOF DOES NOT EXIST IN VACUO
“An onus of proof does not exist in vacuo. The onus or burden of proof is merely an onus to prove or establish an issue. There cannot be any burden of proof where there are no issues in dispute between the parties. For example, if the plaintiff’s claim is admitted, that will be the end of the story. Similarly, if a particular averment of the plaintiff is admitted, there will no longer be an onus to prove what has been admitted by the opposite party. Therefore to discover where the onus lies in any given case, the court has to look critically at the pleadings: Where for instance the plaintiff pleads possession of the land in dispute as his root of title and the defendant admits that possession but adds that the land was given to the plaintiff on pledge, then the onus shifts onto the defendant to prove that the plaintiff is not the owner of the land his possession of which has been admitted.
Once the defendant admits the plaintiff’s possession of the land in dispute in his statement of defence, then and there, the plaintiff has on the pleadings discharged the onus of proof cast on him and section 145 of the Evidence Act Cap 62 of 1958 will impose a burden on the defendant to prove the negative – namely that the plaintiff is not the owner. See Lawrence Onyekaonwu & Ors. V. Ekwubiri (1966) 1 All NLR 32 at P.35. In such a case, it is the defendant who will begin and if at the close of his case he fails to prove that the plaintiff is not the owner, the plaintiff’s claim succeeds without even the plaintiff giving any further evidence” {Per Oguntade JSC quoting with approval the ratio of Per Oputa JSC in George Onobruchere & Anor. V. Ivwromoebo Esegine & Anor. [1986] 2 S.C. 385}
INTERPRETATION OF A DOCUMENT
“The law is settled as a rule of law that in the interpretation of a document, oral or parol evidence will not be admissible among other things, to contradict or alter it where the document is clear and unambiguous”. (Per I.F. Ogbuagu JSC).
WHEN APPELLATE COURT WILL INTERVENE IN EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE
“..it is settled firstly, that if a trial court fails to properly evaluate the evidence before it (as has happened in this case), an Appeal Court, will intervene in order to save the situation”. (Per I.F. Ogbuagu JSC)
CASES CITED
1. Aniemeka Emegokwu V. James Okadegbo [1973] 4 SC 113.
2. Chief Okparaeke & Ors. V. Obidike Egbuonu & Ors. [1941] 7 WACA 53
3. George & Ors. V. Dominion Flour Mills Ltd. [1965] 1 All NLR 71
4. Pioneer Plastic Containers Ltd. V. Commissioner of Customs and Excise [1967] 1 Ch. 597
5. Olufosoye & Ors. V. Olorunfemi [1989] 1 NWLR (Pt. 95) 26
6. Ehimare V. Emhonyon [1985] 1 NWLR (Pt.2) 177
7. George Onobruchere & Anor. V. Ivwromoebo Esegine & Anor. [1986] 2 S.C. 385
8. Ikeanyi V. Adighogu (1957) 2 E.N.L.R. 38
9. Leragun V. Funlayo (1955-56) W.R.N.L.R. 167.
10. Ago Kofi V. Addo Kofi (1933) 1 W.A.C.A. 284.
11. Orisharinu V. Mefue (1937) 13 N.L.R. 181.
12. Ikeanyi V. Adighogu (1957) 2 E.N.L.R. 38 at P.39
13. Leragun V. Funlayo (1955-56) W.R.N.L.R. 167.
14. Ago Kofi V. Addo Kofi (1933) 1 W.A.C.A. 284.
15. Orisharinu V. Mefue (1937) 13 N.L.R. 181.
16. Royal Exchange Assurance Nig. Ltd. & 4 Ors. V. Aswani Textiles Industries Ltd. (1991) 2 NWLR (Pt. 176) 639 C.A.
17. Olanlege V. Afro Continental Nigeria Ltd. (1996) 7 SCNJ. 145
18. Salako V. Dosunmu (1997) 7 SCNJ. 124
19. U.D.C. Ltd. V. P.A. Hammond (Nig.) Ltd. (1998) 9 NWLR (Pt. 565)340.
20. Oneh V. Obi (1999) 7 NWLR (Pt. 611) 487
21. Kwajaffa V. B.O.N. Ltd. (1999) 1 NWLR (Pt. 587) 423
22. Ademolafu V. Adani Pekun (1999) 1 NWLR (Pt. 587) 440
23. FSB International Bank V. Imano (Nig.) Ltd. (2000) 11 NWLR (Pt. 679) 620 at 637; (2000) 7 SCNJ. 65
24. Fashanu V. Adekoya (1974) 1 ANLR (Pt 1) 35; (1974) 6 S.C. 83
25. Owode V. Owodunni (No.2) (1987) 2 NWLR 367
26. Armels Transport Ltd. V. Martins (1970) 1 ANLR 27 at 32.
27. Alhaji Ibrahim V. Galadima S. Barde & 9 Ors. (1996) 12 SCNJ. 1
28. Adeseye V. Taiwo (1956) 1 FSC 84
29. Kindey & 11 Ors. V. The Military Governor of Gongola State & Ors. (1988) 1 NSCC 827
