IKECHUKWU EZEKIEL V THE STATE
April 22, 2025SEVEN-UP BOTTLING CO. LTD v. SIFOR LIMITED & ORS
April 22, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (2025-02) Legalpedia 14358 (CA)
In the Court of Appeal
Fri Feb 7, 2025
Suit Number: SC.257/2007
CORAM
Emmanuel Akomaye Agim Justice Supreme Court of Nigeria
Chioma Egondu Nwosu-Iheme Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Haruna Simon Tsammani Justice Supreme Court of Nigeria
Habeeb Adewale olumuyiwa Abiru Justice Supreme Court of Nigeria
Mohammed Baba Idris Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria
PARTIES
NDAMZI DICKSON
APPELLANTS
EMMANUEL OLA IJALAYE
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
LAND LAW, PROPERTY LAW, EVIDENCE, APPEAL, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, CUSTOMARY LAW, ABANDONED PROPERTY, TITLE TO LAND
SUMMARY OF FACTS
This case revolves around a dispute over the ownership of a property located at No. 9 Lumumba Street, Diobu, Port Harcourt. The Respondent (who was the Plaintiff at the trial Court) claimed that he purchased the building from the Abandoned Property Implementation Committee (APIC) in 1978 for the sum of N5,800. He entered into possession, exercised ownership rights, collected rent from tenants, and was granted a Certificate of Occupancy for the land.
The Respondent alleged that in 1992, while he had a case pending at the Rent Tribunal against tenants for unpaid rent, the Appellant forcibly entered the premises, ejected the tenants, and caused extensive damage to the building by removing doors and windows. As a result, the tenants left the premises, and the Respondent was unable to collect the outstanding rents.
The Appellant, defending himself and the Chinweazu family, counterclaimed that the property belonged to his family and was not an abandoned property, making the sale to the Respondent void ab initio. The Appellant contended that in 1958, one Mr. Kalu Okoro (an Ibo man) unlawfully entered their land and erected the building. Later, Kalu Okoro left, and his son, Victor Okoro, moved in and refused to leave. The Appellant claimed he ejected all occupants by filing a suit against Victor Okoro in the Customary Court, obtaining a judgment (Exhibit G) which declared him as the owner. The Appellant took possession in July 1992 and began renovating when the Respondent surfaced claiming ownership.
HELD
1. The appeal was dismissed for lacking merit.
2. The Supreme Court affirmed the concurrent judgments of the two lower Courts.
3. The property in dispute was correctly determined to be an abandoned property.
4. The Appellant was liable for trespass onto the property.
5. The Appellant was ordered to pay costs assessed at N1,000,000 (One Million Naira) to the Respondent.
ISSUES
1. Whether the Court of Appeal was right to affirm the decision of trial Court that the property in dispute is an “abandoned property” within the meaning in the Rivers State Edict No 8 of 1969?
2. Whether the Court below was right to affirm the decision of the trial Court dismissing the Appellant’s counter-claim?
3. Whether in the circumstances of this case, the Court below was right to hold that the Appellant trespassed onto the property in dispute?
RATIONES DECIDENDI
NOTICE OF APPEAL – THE IMPORTANCE OF A NOTICE OF APPEAL
“The originating process in all appeals is the Notice of Appeal. Once it is found that the notice of appeal is defective, the appellate Court ceases to have jurisdiction to entertain the appeal in whatever form. See FRN VS. DAIRO (2015) 6 NWLR (PT. 1454) 141 AT 166/177 SC, wherein C. C. Nweze, JSC, likened a defective Notice of Appeal to a virus thus: ‘The Notice of Appeal is the foundational process that triggers off an appeal from a lower Court to a higher Court. In effect, the absence of a competent Notice of Appeal, simply, translates to the non-existence of an appeal. It is a condition precedent to any valid exercise of appellate jurisdiction. The importance of a notice of appeal in the process of an appeal is, therefore, tremendous because it is the substratum of the appeal. Thus, if it is defective, it must be struck out on the ground that it is incompetent. See FIRST BANK PLC V. T.S.A. IND. LTD (2010) 15 NWLR (PT. 1216) 247 and SHELIM V. GOBANG (2009) 12 NWLR (PT. 1156) 435.'” – Per MOHAMMED BABA IDRIS, J.S.C.
PRELIMINARY OBJECTION – PAYMENT OF FILING FEES FOR AMENDED NOTICE OF APPEAL
“The payment of filing fees is very fundamental and failure to do so renders the entire appeal a nullity.” – Per MOHAMMED BABA IDRIS, J.S.C.
RAISING ISSUES SUO MOTU – WHEN A COURT IS SAID TO HAVE RAISED AN ISSUE SUO MOTU
“A Court can only be accused of raising an issue, matter or fact suo motu, if the issue, matter or fact did not exist in the litigation. A Court cannot be accused of raising an issue, matter or fact suo motu if the issue, matter or fact exists in the litigation. A Judge, by the nature of his adjudicatory functions, can draw inferences from stated facts in a case and by such inferences, the Judge can arrive at conclusions. It wilI be wrong to say that inferences legitimately drawn from facts in the case are introduced suo motu. That is not correct.” – Per MOHAMMED BABA IDRIS, J.S.C.
BURDEN OF PROOF – WHO BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROVING WHETHER A PROPERTY IS ABANDONED
“The Respondent has stated where he bought his property from which is the Abandoned Property Implementation Committee and he tendered the letter of offer, evidence and receipt of payment for the property. The Respondent also tendered the Certificate of Occupancy obtained for the property. In the face of the foregoing the burden now shifts to the Appellant and he merely relied on Exhibit G, a judgment of a customary Court in a matter between him and the son of the man believed to have unlawfully built the said property on the Appellant’s ‘family land’. Whose evidence seems more credible? On the balance of probability, I will go with the case of the Respondent.” – Per MOHAMMED BABA IDRIS, J.S.C.
STATUS OF PROPERTY SOLD BY ABANDONED PROPERTY IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE
“The Respondent has stated in his statement of claim that he was offered the said property for sale by the Abandoned Property Implementation Committee. The property was presented to him as an abandoned property. He did not declare the property abandoned. The body saddled with the responsibility of determining, managing and selling abandoned properties presented that property as abandoned to him and he bought it. Thus, there is no burden on the Respondent by law to embark on a personal investigation to determine if indeed the property is abandoned.” – Per MOHAMMED BABA IDRIS, J.S.C.
SHIFTING OF BURDEN OF PROOF IN CIVIL CASES
“It is a settled principle of law that in a civil case, the burden of proof lies on the person who desires the Court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability which depends on facts which he asserts to prove that those facts exist. It is also settled that the burden of proof in a particular proceeding lies on the person who would fail if no further evidence is given on either side. See Sections 131 and 132 of the Evidence Act, 2011. The burden of first proving the existence or nonexistence of a particular fact lies on the party against whom the judgment of the Court would be given if no evidence were produced on either side, regard being had to any presumption that may arise on the pleadings. Where a party adduces sufficient evidence to satisfy the Court that the fact sought to be proved is established, the burden shifts to the person against whom judgment would be given if no further evidence were adduced.” – Per MOHAMMED BABA IDRIS, J.S.C.
STANDARD OF PROOF IN CIVIL CASES
“The standard of proof in civil cases is on the balance of probabilities. See generally, the cases of WOLUCHEM VS. GUDI (1981) 5 SC 291, A.G. BAYELSA STATE VS. A.G. RIVERS STATE (2006) 18 NWLR (PT. 1012) 596, AGBAKOBA VS. I.N.E.C. & ORS (2008) 18 NWLR (PT. 1119) 489 and AKINBADE & ANOR VS. BABATUNDE & ORS (2017) LPELR -43463 (SC) respectively.” – Per MOHAMMED BABA IDRIS, J.S.C.
TRADITIONAL HISTORY AS PROOF OF TITLE – REQUIREMENTS FOR ESTABLISHING TITLE TO LAND THROUGH TRADITIONAL HISTORY
“It is now well-settled that a person relying on traditional history as the evidence of his title must give a consistent evidence as to the devolution of such title over the years. There must also be evidence as to how the persons claiming to be the present owners of the land derived their interest and root from those who first settled on the land. See OSIDELE & ORS VS. SOKUNBI (2012) LPELR -9278 (SC) (PP. 21 — 22 PARAS. F). Where a party predicates his claims to title to the land in dispute on traditional history for which they must adduce credible, cogent and uncontradicted evidence to establish their title. See ANNONYE WACHUKWU & ANOR VS. AMADIKE OWUNWANNE & ANOR (2011) 5 SCM 205 AT 229, AIKHIONBARE VS. OMOREGIE (1976) 12 SC11 and NRUAMAH & ORS VS. EBUZOEME & ORS (2013) LPELR -19771 (SC) (PP. 36 PARAS. D).” – Per MOHAMMED BABA IDRIS, J.S.C.
CONCURRENT FINDINGS OF FACT – ATTITUDE OF SUPREME COURT TO CONCURRENT FINDINGS OF FACT
“I recognize that this appeal is against the concurrent findings of fact made by the two Courts below. The two Courts below were ad idem that the property in dispute situate at No. 9, Lumumba Street, Diobu, Port Harcourt was abandoned property. Furthermore, that the evidence of customary title raised in the Counter-Claim did not meet the requirements of law in prove of title by traditional history. The Appellant was unable to establish by this appeal why the concurrent findings of facts made by the two Courts below should be disturbed. Upon reading the pleadings and evidence adduced in prove thereof, I have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the two Courts below were right in their evaluation of the evidence on record and conclusion reached thereon. See Kolo v. Lawan (2018) LPELR-44378 (SC) and Roe Ltd v UNN (2018) LPELR-43855 (SC). In Eyong Idam v Federal Republic of Nigeria (2020) LPELR-49564 (SC), this Court, per Galumje, JSC held as follows: ‘Finally, this appeal is against the concurrent findings of the trial Court and the Court of appeal and the attitude of this Court is that it will not interfere with those findings, unless it is shown that they are perverse. The Appellant has failed to convince me to so interfere with these concurrent findings….'” – Per HARUNA SIMON TSAMMANI, J.S.C.
JURISDICTION OF CUSTOMARY COURT – ABSENCE OF JURISDICTION OVER URBAN LANDS
“The trial Court had the right to evaluate and determine the probative value of Exhibit G since it was pleaded and before it. Firstly, Exhibit G came into existence 14 years after the Respondent had bought the property and entered into possession. Secondly, the customary Court that delivered Exhibit G had no jurisdiction to determine matters of lands in urban areas. Thus, the judgment was void ab initio.” – Per MOHAMMED BABA IDRIS, J.S.C.
ROOT OF TITLE – VALUE OF DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IN PROVING TITLE
“The Respondent has stated where he bought his property from which is the Abandoned Property Implementation Committee and he tendered the letter of offer, evidence and receipt of payment for the property. The Respondent also tendered the Certificate of Occupancy obtained for the property.” – Per MOHAMMED BABA IDRIS, J.S.C.
TRESPASS – WHAT CONSTITUTES TRESPASS TO LAND
“Having decided that the Appellant had no title to the land and not the rightful owner of the land in dispute, the acts of the Appellant entering into the land and making renovation amounts to trespass and thus, the two lower Courts were right to have held same.” – Per MOHAMMED BABA IDRIS, J.S.C.
DISPOSITION OF AN UNMERITORIOUS APPEAL – CONSEQUENCES OF PURSUING FRIVOLOUS APPEALS
“In the circumstances, this appeal has been a monumental waste of the time of this Court. 33 years has been a long time coming and I believe the Respondent or his relatives can now take a breath of fresh air and enjoy the ownership of the land. This appeal is bereft of any merit and it is therefore hereby dismissed. The concurrent judgments of the two lower Courts are hereby affirmed.” – B
CASES CITED
STATUTES REFERRED TO
• Rivers State Abandoned Property (Custody and Management) Edict No. 8 of 1969
