ADEMOLA ADEWUNMI ODUTOLA & ORS VS PROF. AKIN MABOGUNJE & ORS

CORAM

PARTIES

1. MR ADEMOLA ADEWUNMI ODUTOLA2. MADAM OLAYIDE ODUTOLA3. CHIEF (MRS) ADEBISIOLA OKUPE4. CHIEF (MRS) FOLORUNSO ADEUJA5. DR. ABISOYE ODUTOLA6. MR. ADEBOYE ODUTOLA 7. MR OLUFEMI ODUTOLA8. MR. ADEREMI ODUTOLA9. MR ADEGBOLA ODUTOLA10. OLADELE ODUTOLA11. MISS ADETUTU ODUTOLAMISS. ADERONKE ODUTOLA APPELLANTS

RESPONDENTS

AREA(S) OF LAW

SUMMARY OF FACTS

This appeal arose from the judgment of the trial court, the plaintiffs 1-12 are children and persons entitled to the Estate of the deceased. Probate of the deceased’s Will and Codicil was granted to the Defendants who are Executors of the Will. The Plaintiffs challenged the grant on the ground that the deceased did not execute the Will and Codicil due to lack of testamentary Capacity, and prayed the court to make pronouncement against the testamentary documents also that Letter of Administration be granted to them or in the alternative, certain paragraphs in the Will be declared null and void. The trial court granted the Plaintiffs prayers, upon appeal by the Defendant/Appellant the Appeal Court upset the decision of the trial Court which prompted the Plaintiff/Respondent to appeal to the apex Court and the Defendant also cross appeal

HELD

Appeal Dismissed also the cross appeal was dismissed

ISSUES

Whether the learned justice of the Court of Appeal were right in view of the totality of the evidence adduced before the trial court on the issue of testamentary capacity in re-evaluating the evidence and arriving at the conclusion that late Chief Timothy Adeola Odutola had testamentary capacity at the time he purportedly made Exhibit A and Al.Whether the learned justice of the Court of Appeal were right in re-evaluating the evidence adduced by both parties at the trial court on the issue of signature and arriving at the conclusion that late Chief Timothy Adeola Odutola signed Exhibits A and Al. (WILL and CODICIL dated 23rd November 1993 and 14th of March, 1994 respectively).Whether the Court of Appeal was right when it failed to consider and pronounce on issues nos. 10 and 12 formulated by defendants/appellants from grounds 22, 23, 25, 26 and 28 for the further amended notice of appeal when in reformulating issues the court completely ignored the said five grounds of appeal.

RATIONES DECIDENDI

Evaluation of Evidence – Duty of the trial Court in Evaluation of Evidence.

‘It is long settled that it is the duty of the trial court to receive all relevant and admissible evidence. That is perception. The next duty is to weigh the evidence received from both sides and decide where the scale tilts on qualitative and compelling evidence. That is evaluation. A finding of fact involves both perception and evaluation.’-Per Bode Rhodes- Vivour, (JSC)

Evaluation of Evidence – Instances where the Court of Appeal can Re-evaluate Evidence

‘It is not the duty of the appeal court to evaluate evidence. This is the primary responsibility of the trial court. But where the trial court fails to evaluate evidence properly the appeal court is duty bound to re-evaluate evidence and make correct findings of its own. Where evaluation of evidence entails issues of credibility of witnesses the appeal court should be reluctant to differ from a trial judge s findings of fact based on credibility of witnesses. This is so because the trial judge had the opportunity which an appeal court never had of hearing and watching the demeanor of witnesses as they testify. The trial court is obviously best suited to assess a witness credibility. But where the findings are based on drawing inferences and making findings from admitted and established facts and documentary evidence, an appeal court is in as good a position to evaluate the evidence as the trial court’-Per Bode Rhodes- Vivour, (JSC)

Expert Opinion – Deciding on the opinion of an Expert

‘An expert on handwriting may give his opinion on a disputed signature or writing but the final decision on the issue is made by the judge’-Per Bode Rhodes- Vivour, (JSC)

Formulation of Issues – The Appeal Court can either adopt or formulate Issues Suo motu

‘ The well laid down position of the law is that an appeal court is free to adopt or formulate issues suo motu, provided such issues arise from valid grounds of appeal and adequately address the real grievance in the appeal. The entire exercise in reformulating issues by an appeal court is done in the interest of justice.’-Per Bode Rhodes- Vivour, (JSC)

Documentary Evidence – Effect of Documentary Evidence on Oral Evidence

‘When documentary evidence supports oral evidence, oral evidence becomes more credible. The reasoning being that documentary evidence serves as a hanger from which to assess oral testimony’-Per Bode Rhodes- Vivour, (JSC)

Rebuttable Presumption of existence of facts

‘This is premised on the position of the law that the law presumes that a state of things shown to exist continues to exist unless the contrary is proved.’-Per Bode Rhodes- Vivour, (JSC)

CASES CITED

Kindley v. M.G. Gongola State (1988) 2 NWLR (pt.77) p.473.OmoreAbe v. Lawani (1980)5-4 SC pill.Eya &2 ors v. Olapade & anor (2011)5SC (Pt.ll)P37CPC v. INEC& 41 ors (2011)12 SC .80Eyo v. Onuoka (2012)-3 SC (pt.l) p.220Ayuya & 4 ors v. Yonrin & 5 ors (2011)4 SC (pt.ll)p.1Adedeii v. NBK 200135WRN p.147Aduku v. Adefob 19945 NWLR Pt346 P382Oyeney e v. Odugbesan (19724) SCp.244Bakare v. ACB. Ltd 19863NWLR (Pt.26)47Bkoiwani v. Bkoiwani 1996 6NWLR (pt.457) p.663Ok Qdu v. Duke (No2) 200510NWLR Pi952 p.120Akpa v. State 1995 6NWLR pt.248 P.439Bkoiwani v. Bkoiwani 1996 6NWLR pt.457p.663Ok Qdu v. Duke (No2) 200510NWLR Pi952 p.120

STATUTES REFERRED TO

NONE

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT