CORAM
JUMMAI HANNATU SANKEY JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL
IBRAHIM SHATA BDLIYA JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL
EBIOWEI TOBI JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL
PARTIES
1. PURPLE PINE GLOBAL CONCEPT LTD
2. NMADU ABUROCHUKWU NMADUKA
APPELLANTS
1. MUSA IZGE (Carrying on business under the name and Style of Musa Izge Communications)
2. ADAMU MUSA NGULDE
3. HARUNA ALHAJI MUSA MOH’D NGULDE
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
APPEAL, COURT, JUDGMENT AND ORDER, LAW OF EVIDENCE, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The Claimant/Appellant’s claim before the High Court of Justice, Borno State, was for a declaration that the irrevocable Power of Attorney donated to the 1st Claimant by the 1st Defendant still subsists as such the 1st Claimant deserves the absolute right and power to assign, mortgage, lease, donate and convey the property known as plot No. 1, Aliyu Close containing an area of 2081.04Sqm on plan No. BOTP No. 5 of Dambo Road, G.R.A. extension, Maiduguri, Borno State covered by Certificate of Occupancy No. BO/920. They further sought an order of perpetual injunction, general damages and cost of the suit.
The Claimant, alternatively sought an order directing the 1st Defendant to pay the Claimants the sum of Five Million, Four Hundred and Eighty Thousand, Two Hundred and Sixty-Six Naira (N5, 450, 266.00) being the principal sum of the credit for the GSM recharge cards of various communication networks to wit: MTN, Zain (now Airtel), Glo and Etisalat he collected from the claimants; Consequential order directing the 1st Defendant for payment of Thirty percent (30%) interest of the principal sum to the Claimants; an Order imposing Five percent (5%) interest of the principal sum against the principal sum and the interest accrued thereto.
The Defendant/Respondents denied the claim and each of them filed their respective Statements of defence. At the close of hearing, Counsel for the respective parties made their closing addresses.
The trial court entered Judgment partly in favour of the Appellants, thereby awarding the Appellants the sum of N320, 000.00 against the 1st Respondent.
Dissatisfied with the decision, the Appellants, with the leave of Court sought and obtained, filed their Notice and Grounds of Appeal, wherein they sought an order of the Court allowing the appeal, setting aside the Judgment of the Lower Court and in its place enter judgment for the Appellants in the sum claimed.
HELD
Appeal Dismissed
ISSUES
Whether in the circumstance of the evidence on record, the lower Court was right in coming to the decision dismissing the Appellants’ claim
RATIONES DECIDENDI
CIVIL MATTER – DUTY OF A CLAIMANT BEFORE A COURT IN A CIVIL MATTER
“As rightly held by the learned trial Judge, the first duty of a Claimant before a Court in a civil matter is to prove his claim by credible evidence to the standard required by law, which is on a balance of probabilities based on the preponderance of evidence. The burden first rests on the party who would fail if no evidence at all were led on either side. This may subsequently shift depending on the preponderance of evidence. Where a claimant fails to prove the averments in his pleadings, he is bound to fail – Section 133 of the Evidence Act, 2011; Adamu V Nigerian Airforce (2022) LPELR-56587(SC) 13, D, per Peter-Odili, JSC; APC V Obaseki (2021) LPELR-55004(SC) 19-21, E-C, per Agim, JSC; Ekweozor V The Regd. Trustees of the Saviour’s Apostolic Church of Nig. (2020) LPELR-49568(SC) 39-40, B-E, per Peter-Odili, JSC; Sakati V Bako (2015) LPELR-24739(SC) 34, C-E, per Ngwuta, JSC; Daodu NNPC (1998) LPELR-927(SC) 17, B-D, per Owuegbu, JSC. PER J.H.SANKEY,J.C.A
DUMPING OF DOCUMENTS – WHAT AMOUNTS TO DUMPING OF DOCUMENTS ON THE COURT?
“It is settled law that despite the tendering of exhibits in proof of a case, the onus of proving the case pleaded and for which the documents were tendered in evidence, lies on the Claimant. Where a claimant tenders documents in Court without linking them individually to the case being made, in this case, to the claim of money owed the Appellants by the 1st Respondent, it amounts to dumping of the documents on the Court. The law is trite that it is not the duty of the Court to sort out the documents and relate them to the claim of a party in order to arrive at the total sum claimed by the claimant. Doing so would compromise the role of the Court as an impartial arbiter. See Maku V Al-Makura (2016) LPELR-48123(SC) 21-22, E-F, per Onnoghen, JSC (later CJN).
This Court in Akpabio V Union Bank Plc (2021) LPELR-54301(CA), 13-15, F-A, per Owoade, JCA explained it simply but splendidly when he said –
“The rule of evidence which requires demonstration of documents tendered in proof of a case arose in the case of Duruminiya V COP (1962) NNLR 70 where Bate J. said that, a trial is not an investigation and that investigation is not the function of a Court. That, a trial is the public demonstration and testing of the cases of contesting parties. That, the demonstration is by presentation of evidence and that the testing is by cross examination of witnesses. Since then, trial Judges frown on the dumping of documents as it were in Court without linking same to the particular facts and/or reliefs sought by the parties to the case.”
It has also been held in Ogboro V Uduaghan (2011) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1232) 538, 580-581, that –
“A party relying on documents as part of his case must specifically relate each of such documents as part of his case in respect of which the document is tendered. The rationale for this judicial attitude is that the Court cannot be saddled with the duty of relating each of the documents or bundles of documents tendered in evidence to aspects of the case of a party. This is because it is the duty of the party to do so for himself. More so, it would be an infraction of the right of fair hearing if the Tribunal, in the ambience of its chambers engages itself to guess which document relates to a particular aspect of the case of a party. Such a duty ought to be carried out in open Court.”
CASES CITED
Not Available
STATUTES REFERRED TO
Not Available