MR. ABBAS MUSTAPHA vs. IDRIS MAHMUD
April 13, 2025THE COMPTROLLER, NIGERIA IMMIGRATION SERVICE ADAMAWA STATE COMMAND & ANOR vs. AHMADU DANLADI SAIDU
April 13, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (2022-06) Legalpedia 80361 (CA)
In the Court of Appeal
HOLDEN AT YOLA
Fri Dec 8, 2017
Suit Number: CA/YL/50/2016
CORAM
HON. JUSTICE, OYEBISI FOLAYEMI OMOLEYE JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL
HON. JUSTICE, JAMES SHEHU ABIRIYI JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL
HON. JUSTICE, SAIDU TANKO HUSAINI JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL
PARTIES
1. NAPHTALI SANABORN ABRAHAM
2. MBA YAKUBU (for himself and on behalf of late Yakubu Kona family)
APPELLANTS
1.THEOPHILUS BAÁJON
2. MARIAM YUSUF
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
EVIDENCE, LAND LAW, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The Appellants instituted an action at the High Court of Justice of Taraba State, sitting in Jalingo and claimed through the writ of summons issued on the 27th October, 2008 and the Statement of claim (as amended), the following reliefs among other reliefs against the Respondents jointly and severally thus:
(A) AN ORDER declaring the 9/6/2004 purported sale of the Land in dispute by Luka to the 1st Defendant or Defendants without the family’s approval is invalid or void.
(B) AN ORDER FOR DECLARATION OF TITLE over that securely Fenced piece of land measuring 65 x 75 x 69 feet lying and situate at A.T.C. Kofai, Wukari Road which is bounded at the North, by the Jaingo-Wukari High Way; At the South, by another Motrorable Road lying parallel to the Jalingo –Wukari High Way: At the West, by a small stream and by the East, by Hon. Patrick Sanya former Ardo Kola Locla Got. Chairman’s plot and all the appurtenances therein based of his purchase of the land on 9/6/07.
The main thrust of the Appellants’ case at the trial Court was that Exhibit N.A.I, a sale agreement tendered through Pw1, was the agreement which had the approval and consent of the Head of the Yakubu Kona family, to sell the disputed land to the 1st Appellant and not Exhibit T.B. 1 which had no such consent or approval of the family.
The Respondents as Defendants had denied the claims of the Appellants and filed an amended statement of defence dated 2nd November, 2008. The point of note made by them is that there was/is a valid transfer of the land in dispute to the Defendants/Respondents in the light of Exhibit T.B.1 which according to them, is not subject to any conditionalities.
The trial court considered the case of the two opposing parties after which the court in the Judgment reserved and delivered on the 11th November, 2013, found for the Respondents.
Dissatisfied and aggrieved by the decision of the trial Court, the Appellant has lodged the instant appeal predicated on four grounds of appeal contained in the Notice of Appeal dated the 16th December, 2013.
HELD
Appeal dismissed.
ISSUES
Whether from the evidence on record, the purported or alleged sale of the land in dispute to the Respondents by Luka Yakubu was done with the knowledge and consent of Mba Yakubu, the 2nd Appellant, who is the head of the Yakubu Kona family as found by the learned trial Judge. (Ground 1 and 2)
Whether there is evidence on record supporting the decision of the learned trial Judge dismissing the case of the Appellant before him that there was a valid sale of the land in dispute between the Yakubu Kona family and the Respondent (Grounds 3).
Whether the decision of the learned trial Judge dismissing the case of the Appellant before him holding that Luka Yakubu and the entire Yakubu Kona family had no title or any right over the land in dispute to sell and transfer same to the 1st Appellant as they did is supported by the evidence before him. (Ground 4).
RATIONES DECIDENDI
SALE OF FAMILY LAND – EFFECT OF SALE OF FAMILY LAND WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF THE PRINCIPAL MEMBERS OF THE FAMILY
“It is an accepted customary law practice, which is now the law that any sale of family property without the consent or conscience of the principal members of the family is void and there are numerous decisions of courts in support of this position. See for instance, decisions in Ekpendu V. Erika (1959) SCNLR 186; Ofondu V. Onuoha (a964) NWLR 120; Lukan Vs. Ogunsusi (1972) 5 SC 40; Babayeju V. Ashuma (1998) 9 NWLR (Pt. 567) 546; Alao Vs. Ajani (1989) NWLR (Pt. 113) 1 Solomon Vs. Mogaji (1982) 11 SC, 10; Okonkwo V. Okonkwo (1998) 10 NWLR (Pt.571) 554; Teriba Vs. Adeyemo (2010) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1211) 242 (SC) Folamu Vs. Cole & Ors (1990) 2 NWLR (Pt. 133) 445; In John F. Alaribe Vs. Chief Jerry Okuonu (2015) LPELR (CA), this Court held that:
“As the trial court held, family land can only be sold or disposed of with the consent or ratification of the other principal members of the family for the sale to be validated….” – Per HUSAINI, J.C.A.
EXCLUSION OF DOCUMENTS BY ORAL EVIDENCE- WHETHER DOCUMENTS CAN BE VARIED BY ORAL EVIDENCE
The law is there and the same is enacted at Section 128(1) of the Evidence Act 2011, Cap E.14 which provides, without the proviso, that:-
“When a Judgment of a court or any other judicial or official proceedings, contract or any grant or other disposition of property has been reduced the form of a document or series of documents no evidence may be given or such Judgment or proceedings or of the terms of such contract, grant or disposition of property except document itself, or its contents in cases in which secondary evidence is admissible under this Act; nor may the content of such document be contradicted, altered ,added to or varied by oral evidence…”
That is what Exhibit TB1 represents. It is a contract document. You may wish to call it a grant or document evidencing the disposition of property. Such documents are not amenable to, neither can it be varied by oral evidence….
When therefore Pw2 and Pw3, among others, in their evidence (sworn statements) testified to say that Exhibit TBI did not receive the blessing, consent and approval of the Head of family or that the purchaser of the land in dispute vide Exhibit TBI was not able to pay the expected purchase price, there is clear attempt being made by them to vary the contents of Exhibit TBI by reading meaning into what otherwise, are simple, clear and unambiguous terms contained in Exhibit TBI. Such is not acceptable. The apex Court had held in Ogundele Vs Agiri (2009) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1173) 219 (SC) that:-
“It is trite law that oral evidence is inadmissible to contradict the contents of a document. In other words, oral testimony cannot be used to state the content of a document. Section 132 (1) of the Evidence Act; and no extraneous matter can be imported into the record of proceedings…”
See further the decision in Nnubia V. Attorney-General Rivers State (1999) 3 NWLR (Pt. 593) 82 Ogundepo Vs. Olumesan (2012) Vol 203 LCCN 157, 170; Agbareh V. Mimra (2008) 158 LRCN 325.” – Per HUSAINI, J.C.A.
DISPOSITION OF PROPERTY-WHETHER AN INTEREST OF A BUYER CAN BE OVERRIDDEN BY A SUBSEQUENT LEGAL ESTATE CREATED BY THE SAME VENDOR
“The law is trite that the person or party who disposes of his property to a willing buyer is left with no other interest in that property as can be sold or disposed or transferred for a second time as you cannot eat your cake and have it back. See: Ohiaeri Vs. Yusuf & Ors (2009) Vol. 175 LRCN 210, 223-224, where the apex court held:-
“…the established legal principle is that where there is an agreement for sale of land either under native law and custom or any other mode of sale and for which the purchaser, acting within the terms of the agreement, makes full or part of the purchase price to the vendor and is in furtherance thereof put in possession, he has acquired an equitable interest in the property and which interest ranks as high as a legal estate and cannot therefore be overridden by a subsequent legal estate created by the same vendor or his legal representative in favour of another person.” – Per HUSAINI, J.C.A.
CASES CITED
NONE
STATUTES REFERRED TO
