CORAM

---

SIR U. UDOMA, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

MUSA DATTIJO MUHAMMED

---

PARTIES

---

OTHNIEL SHEKSE (For himself and on behalf of Kerang Community). APPELLANTS

---

RESPONDENTS

---

AREA(S) OF LAW

---

---

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The appellant claimed a declaration that the Quarry Site within the Bwansuhum area is in the customary Possession and ownership of the appellant and an order for the respondents to account. The trial court dismissed the claim which was confirmed by the court of appeal.

---

HELD

---

The court dismissed the appeal and held that there was no reason to interfere with the concurrent decision of the lower courts.

---

ISSUES

---

1. Whether the Court of Appeal and the lower court were right in dismissing the appellant’s claims and reliefs having regard to the provisions of sections 34,35,36 and 37 and the interpretation of Exhibit ‘D’ the Plateau State Government (white paper) and gazette of 1981 on “Bwanzuhum area/village where the Quarry Site is Located within” is not in Kerang District of Mangu Local Government Council as per the claim and reliefs of the Appellant before the court 2. Whether or not having regards to the pleadings, the evidence called cum the Exhibits tendered the learned justices of the Court of Appeal were right in dismissing the appellant’s declaratory claim that the Quarry site in Bwanzuhum is not part of Kerang District. 3. Whether or not the learned justices of the Court of Appeal rightly dismissed the issue of the trial court making a case on boundary dispute between Kerang District and Ampang District and farmlands for the parties which were not the issues before the trial court for determination on the pleadings claims and the reliefs thereto.4. Whether or not the lower court was right and did not occasion a miscarriage of justice in affirming the decision of the trial court which extensively used the unrecorded evidence at the loqus sin quo which materially and adversely affected the decision of the trial court occasioning a miscarriage of justice in the circumstance of this case.5. Whether or not the oral evidence of P.Ws 1,2,4 and D.Ws 1,2,3,4 and 5 led in Hausa language without an interpreter to English language (viva vorce) as recorded by the trial judge in English language did not vitiate the trial proceedings and or occasioned a miscarriage of justice as held by the Court of Appeal in the circumstances of this case.6. Whether the learned justices of the Court of Appeal were right in holding that the N22,000.00 paid by the P.W. (Nig) Ltd to the defendants/respondents Whether for trespass to farmland or consideration for lease of Quarry was immaterial in the circumstance of this case.

---

RATIONES DECIDENDI

---

DUTY ON COUNSEL TO OBJECT TO WRNGFUL PROCEDURE

---

It is a fact that where a particular court has a language other than English that court is duty bound to provide an interpreter who can read and speak both the language and English. But where both counsel have been in court and present during the proceeding and did not protest or object to such procedure this court will consider such lapses, if any, as of no moment -Muntaka- Coomasie J.S.C

---

CONCURRENT FINDINGS OF FACT-WHEN THE SUPREME COURT WILL INTERFERE

---

It is not the business of the Court to disturb findings of facts which are not shown to be perverse – Ogebe J.S.C.

---

CASES CITED

---

1. Ike v. Ugboaja (1993) 6 NWLR (Pt. 301, 359)2. Enang v. Adu (1981) 11 – 12 SC 25 3. Ige v. Olunloyo (1984) 1 SCNLR 158

---

STATUTES REFERRED TO

---

NONE

---

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT