CORAM
Uwani Musa Abba Aji -Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Ibrahim Mohammed Musa Saulawa -Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Chioma Egondu Nwosu-Iheme-Justice of supreme court
Obande Festus Ogbuinya- Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Habeeb Adewale Olumuyiwa Abiru- Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria
PARTIES
1. OKECHUKWU AMADI
2. NNA ALI
3. PETER WOKE
4. OGUNKA HEKEREM
5. ROSELYNE (BABY) WOKE (for themselves and on and on behalf of the Omuenyimah Family of Umualikor-Omopo Elele in Ikwere LGA Rivers State)
6. OKWUDILI AMADI
7. CHIEF ISAAC WONWU
APPELLANTS
1. CHUKWUEMEKA THANKGOD WOKEM
2. MRS. ROSELINE IYAMU (NEE WOKEM)
3. REV. AZUBUIKE WOKEM
4. AKO WOKEM
5. OSAI WOKEM (for themselves and on behalf of Wokem of Omuminyah, Umualikor-Omopo, Elele in Ikwere LGA Rivers State and on behalf of those who bought from them)
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
LAND LAW, EVIDENCE, PROPERTY LAW, CUSTOMARY LAW, ARBITRATION, APPEAL, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE, ACTS OF OWNERSHIP AND POSSESSION
SUMMARY OF FACTS
This case concerns a land dispute between the Appellants (representing the Omuenyimah Family of Umualikor-Omopo Elele in Ikwere LGA Rivers State) and the Respondents (representing the Wokem family of Omuminyah, Umualikor-Omopo, Elele in Ikwere LGA Rivers State). The Respondents claimed ownership of a piece of land along Port Harcourt/Elele Road, known as Isi-Ezi land, covered by a Deed of Conveyance (Grant) dated 15th June 1964, made by Joseph Basam Wokem and registered as No. 3 at page 3 in Volume 393 in the Lands Registry, Enugu.
The Respondents claimed that the land was originally owned by their father, the late Pa Joseph Basam Wokem, who deforested the land and granted it to them. They farmed on the land, planted cash crops and economic trees, and sold portions to several persons, including aportion upon which a filling station was built. They alleged that in 2009, the Appellants challenged one of their assignees who was building on the land, claiming it belonged to the Appellants' family. The dispute was referred to the Elele Council of Chiefs (Oha Omenele Red Cap Chiefs) for arbitration, which allegedly ruled in favor of the Respondents. Later, the Appellants allegedly invaded the land, attacked workers, seized tools, destroyed crops, erected structures, and harassed the Respondents assignees.
The Appellants denied the Respondents claims, contending that the land belonged to their family and was part of vast arable land deforested by their progenitor many years ago. They claimed that in the 1950s, their family elders granted the disputed portion to Pa Joseph Basam Wokem for farming purposes, which was how the Respondents came to be on the land. The Appellants stated that disputes over land use began in the early 1960s, leading to an attempted arbitration in 1966, which Pa Joseph Basam Wokem abandoned. Regarding the 2009 arbitration, they claimed the outcome was in their favor. They denied harassing the Respondents assignees, claiming instead that the assignees approached them to repurchase the land after learning the truth about ownership.
The High Court of Rivers State found in favor of the Respondents. The Court of Appeal affirmed this decision. The Appellants appealed to the Supreme Court.
HELD
1. The appeal was dismissed.
2. The Supreme Court upheld the concurrent findings of the High Court and Court of
Appeal that the Respondents had proved better evidence of recent acts of possession of the disputed land than the Appellants.
3. The Court affirmed that the arbitration decision (Exhibit C) supported the Respondents case by establishing their possession of the land in dispute.
4. The Court held that the Appellants acts of selling portions of the land after the customary arbitration could not constitute viable acts of recent possession as they were carried out in brazen disregard of the arbitration decision.
5. The parties were ordered to bear their respective costs of the appeal.
ISSUES
1. Whether the lower Court was correct in affirming that the Respondents proved their title to the land in dispute by reference to acts of recent possession and Exhibit C.?
2. Whether the lower Court was right in discountenancing Exhibits F, H, K, and L in its application of the Rule in Kojo Vs Bonsie.?
RATIONES DECIDENDI
ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION – ESSENCE AND CHARACTERISTICS OF ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION:
“This Court must say for the umpteenth time that the essence of issues for determination in an appeal is to narrow down the issue or issues in controversy between the parties for the easy comprehension of the appellate Court. It is to reduce the grounds of appeal into terse compact formulations. It is to project lucidly and concisely the substance of the complaint in the grounds of appeal requiring resolution. Therefore, an issue for determination must be characterized by precision, brevity and clarity. It must be simply, concisely and tersely formulated and it must be comprehensible.– Per HABEEB ADEWALE OLUMUYIWA ABIRU, J.S.C.
EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE BY TRIAL COURTS – WHEN APPELLATE COURTS WILL INTERFERE WITH EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE:
The law on evaluation of evidence by the different hierarchies of Court is set and settled. The primary responsibility is that of a trial Court to evaluate the evidence presented by parties before it, ascribe probative value to the evidence and then come up with a decision. Where the records of proceedings show that a trial Court assessed the evidence produced before it and accorded probative value to them and weighed them before making its findings, an appellate Court will not interfere with the evaluation of evidence carried out by a trial Court and will not substitute its own views for that of the trial Court unless the conclusion reached from the facts is perverse.” – Per HABEEB ADEWALE OLUMUYIWA ABIRU, J.S.C.
BURDEN ON APPELLANT SEEKING INTERFERENCE WITH TRIAL COURT’S EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE – WHAT APPELLANT MUST DEMONSTRATE:
“Where an appellant desires an appellate Court to interfere with the evaluation of evidence carried out by the lower Court and to re-evaluate the evidence and hold that the decision of the lower Court incorrect, the onus is on him to visibly demonstrate the perversity of the findings made by the lower Court by showing that the lower Court (i) made improper use of the opportunity
it had of seeing and hearing the witnesses; or (ii) did not appraise the evidence and ascribe probative value to it; or (iii) drew wrong conclusions from proved or accepted facts leading to a miscarriage of justice. Where an appellant fails to do so, an appellate Court has no business re-evaluating the evidence and interfering with the findings of the lower Court.”– Per HABEEB ADEWALE OLUMUYIWA ABIRU, J.S.C.
CONCURRENT FINDINGS OF FACT – ATTITUDE OF SUPREME COURT TO CONCURRENT FINDINGS:
“This Court has reiterated in a plethora of decided cases that it does not make it a habit of disturbing the concurrent findings of lower Courts and would only do so if exceptional circumstances are shown – Woluchem Vs Gudi (1981) 5 SC 291, Ohaegbu & Ors Vs Registered Trustees of the Capuchin Friars Minor Nigeria (2022) LPELR-57324(SC), Oyeyemi vs State (2023) 7 NWLR (Pt 1882) 181, Barde Vs Independent National Electoral Commission (2024) LPELR-61647(SC), Ahiwe Vs Independent National Electoral Commission (2024) LPELR-61674(SC), Friday vs State (2024) LPELR- 61797(SC).” – Per HABEEB ADEWALE OLUMUYIWA ABIRU, J.S.C.
POWER OF SUPREME COURT IN APPEALS AGAINST CONCURRENT FINDINGS – LIMITATIONS:
“The power of this Court in an appeal against concurrent findings of facts is very narrow and it is restricted to considering only whether the concurrent findings of fact are perverse or not supported by evidence or whether there was improper or no evaluation of evidence that has caused a miscarriage of justice. This Court has no power to go outside the above periscope to consider alternative views that can be reached from the evidence.”– Per HABEEB ADEWALE OLUMUYIWA ABIRU, J.S.C.
RULE IN KOJO VS BONSIE – APPLICATION WHERE TRADITIONAL HISTORY IS INCONCLUSIVE:
“Now, as stated earlier, the Appellants conceded the findings of the two lower Court that the evidence of traditional history put forward by both parties was inconclusive and that resort must be had to the recent acts of possession of the parties on the land within living memory, in recent years, in line with the Rule in Kojo II vs Bonsie (1957) 1 WLR 1223. The phrase recent years in relation to the rule in Kojo Il Vs Bonsie means years outside the traditional history which events are more current than the traditional history.
For instance, asserting title or ownership to a land in dispute after the traditional history should qualify as evidence of recent history, although the evidence asserting the title or ownership was quite some years ago. In other words, any act of title or possession coming after the traditional history should qualify as evidence of recent years”– Per HABEEB ADEWALE OLUMUYIWA ABIRU, J.S.C.
ACTS OF POSSESSION CONSTITUTING EVIDENCE OF OWNERSHIP
“WHAT CONSTITUTES SUFFICIENT ACTS OF POSSESSION: “The Courts have held that the cultivation of a piece of land, the erection of a building or a fence, the surveying of land by a land surveyor and the demarcation of its boundaries by stout wooden pegs were sufficient acts of possession signaling ownership of land and that it was the same whether these acts were carried out personally or through third parties such as servants and agents.” – Per HABEEB ADEWALE OLUMUYIWA ABIRU, J.S.C.
SURVEY PILLARS AS EVIDENCE OF POSSESSION – SIGNIFICANCE OF SURVEY PILLARS IN ESTABLISHING POSSESSION:
“In the present case, the appellant had the land conveyed to him surveyed and four pillars were planted at the corners. He said he commenced the foundation of another house on the land in dispute apart from the houses he erected in Nos. 32 and 34 Azikiwe Street… He cultivated part of the land. … I have no doubt that the learned trial Judge did not appreciate the essence of the evidence so given as acts of possession. He had no justification to simply conclude that he did not believe the evidence.
Even leaving out the evidence about the commencement of a foundation and of cultivation of the land in dispute, the evidence of erection of survey pillars which cannot be denied having regard to Exhibit PI, is sufficient evidence of possession.” – Per HABEEB ADEWALE OLUMUYIWA ABIRU, J.S.C.
CUSTOMARY ARBITRATION – VALIDITY AND BINDING EFFECT OF CUSTOMARY ARBITRATION:
“Now, the validity of customary arbitration in our legal jurisprudence is presently beyond question – Okechukwu Vs Etukokwu (1998) 8 NWLR (Pt 562) 513, Nwakpa vs Nwogu (2006) 2 NWLR (Pt 964) 251. The rationale for the recognition of customary arbitration is predicated on the concept of the freedom of parties to a dispute to choose the forum for the resolution of the dispute. It is a principle of dispute resolution that where disputes or matters in difference between two or more parties are by consent of the disputants submitted to a domestic forum, inclusive of arbitrators, or a body of persons invested with judicial authority to hear and determine such disputes and matters for investigation in accordance with customary law and general usages, and a decision is duly given, it is as conclusive and unimpeachable (unless and until set aside on any recognized grounds) as the decision of any constituted Court of the land.”– Per HABEEB ADEWALE OLUMUYIWA ABIRU, J.S.C.
EFFECT OF CUSTOMARY ARBITRATION AWARD – BINDING NATURE OF CUSTOMARY ARBITRATION DECISIONS:
“The general rule is that parties to customary arbitration choose their own arbitrator to be the Judge in the dispute between them, they cannot when the award is good on its face, object to the decision reached either upon the law or the facts – Ehoche Vs Ijegwa (2003) 7 NWLR (Pt 818) 139. The Appellants having submitted to the arbitration by the Oha Omenele Red Cap Chiefs of Elele Town were bound by the outcome of the arbitration – Anyabunsi vs Ugwunze (1995) 6 NWLR (Pt 401) 255, Oparaji vs Ohanu (1999) 9 NWLR (Pt 618) 290 and Onyenge vs Ebere (2004) 13 NWLR (Pt 889) 20.”– Per HABEEB ADEWALE OLUMUYIWA ABIRU, J.S.C
PARTIES BOUND BY CUSTOMARY ARBITRATION – PARTIES CANNOT RESILE AFTER AWARD IS MADE:
“One of the many ways of settling disputes under the customary law is to refer the dispute to a family head or an elder or elders of the Community for compromise solution. When the dispute has been investigated at the meeting in accordance with customary law and a decision is given, it is binding on the parties. There is as a rule an agreement that the decision of the arbitrators would be accepted as final and binding. In the instant case, the 1st respondent and the 2nd respondent both voluntarily submitted the dispute as to whether the land in dispute was on pledge to the 2nd respondent or not. The 2nd only resiled after the arbitrators had made their awards. It was not open to him to do so at that stage.” – Per HABEEB ADEWALE OLUMUYIWA ABIRU, J.S.C.
ACTS IN CONTEMPT OF ARBITRATION – EFFECT ON CLAIM OF RECENT POSSESSION:
“Therefore, it is commonsensical that an act done by the Appellants in brazen disregard for and in contempt of the decision of the arbitral Tribunal cannot constitute a viable act of recent possession that a Court will rely on in their favour. The lower Courts were correct that, on a preponderance of evidence, the Respondents led better evidence of recent acts of possession than the Appellants.”– Per HABEEB ADEWALE OLUMUYIWA ABIRU, J.S.C.
CONCURRENT FINDINGS – APPELLANT’S BURDEN TO SHOW EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES
“Where there are concurrent findings of fact by the Court of Appeal and the trial Court against the Appellant, such findings can only be interfered with by this Court when exceptional circumstances have been shown by the Appellant.”– Per UWANI MUSA ABBA AJI, J.S.C.
CASES CITED
STATUTES REFERRED TO
Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended)
Evidence Act 2011
Land Use Act Cap L.5 Laws of Federation of Nigeria 2004
Land Registration Law (Cap 107) Laws of Eastern Nigeria 1963
Registration of Titles Law of Rivers State
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, Cap A18, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004
CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT