CORAM

---

ADOLPHUS C. KARIBI-WHYTE, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

MICHAEL E. OGUNDARE , JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

OKAY ACHIKE, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

SAMUEL O. UWAIFO, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

---

PARTIES

---

1. PETER ADEBOYE ODOFIN 2. OLATUNJI ANOKE (For themselves and as representatives of Izo and Idofin Communities) APPELLANTS

---

RESPONDENTS

---

AREA(S) OF LAW

---

---

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The court of appeal set aside the decision of the customary court giving title to the land in dispute to the plaintiffs as confirmed by the High Court on the grounds that it placed the burden of proof on the defendants.

---

HELD

---

The court allowed the appeal and restored the decision of the customary court.

---

ISSUES

---

1. Was the lower court right in proceeding to consider and finding in favour of the respondent the issue raised as arising from the complaint in Ground 2 of the respondent’s notice of appeal after it had earlier held that the said ground 2 lacked merit and deemed abandoned?2. Whether the learned Justices of the Court below were right in holding that all the arguments and other grounds of the respondent’s appeal are covered by the two issues formulated by both parties without considering the binding decided cases cited to them by the appellants?3. Was the lower court right in using a finding of the customary court from which an appeal does not lie to it and which was not appealed against by the respondent in arriving at its conclusion that the identity of the land was not certain?4. Was the lower court right in holding that the High Court failed to resolve the issue of identity of the land in dispute and that the identity of the land was not certain?5. Was the lower court right in not properly considering and applying to this case the guidelines. laid down in the judgments of this honourable court for the interpretation of the claims in procedure followed by and the proceedings and judgment in a Customary Court?

---

RATIONES DECIDENDI

---

PROOF OF IDENTITY OF LAND KNOWN TO BOTH PARTIES

---

Where both parties are familiar with, or know the land in dispute, the question of its identity or its certainty will cease to perplex the trial court, so also the appellate court, and neither party will be allowed to place a cog in the wheel of justice by mischievously raising the issue of identity in order to becloud what is otherwise a piece of land that is well-known to both parties- Achike J.S.C.

---

ATTITUDE OF SUPERIOR COURTS TO THE DECISIONS OF CUSTOMARY COURTS

---

Superior courts, particularly the apex court, have continued to stress that greater latitude and broader interpretations must be accorded to decisions of customary courts as it is trite that the proceedings in the customary courts are not subject to the application of the Evidence Act. It is important that superior appellate courts in relation to matters relating to customary courts should focus their attention to the substance of the judgments or decision in those courts rather than the form – Achike J.S.C

---

CASES CITED

---

1. Fabumi v. Agbe (1985) 3 SC. at pp. 94-95,2.  Odiche v. Chibogwu (1994) 7 NWLR (Pt. 354) 78, 86,3. Arabe v. Asanlu (1980) 5-7 SC. 78Ikpang v. Edoho (1978) 6-7 SC. 221,4. Ajagunjeun & Ors. v. Sobo Osho of Yeku Village & Ors. (1977) 5 SC. 89,5. Madubuonwu v. Nnalue (1999) 11 NWLR (Pt. 628) 673,6. Ofozo Onyido v. Goddy Ejemba (1991) 4 NWLR (Pt. 184) 2037. Okoli v. Onyejuluwa (2000) 10 NWLR (Pt. 676) 450

---

STATUTES REFERRED TO

---

None

---

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT