ALHAJI ISIYAKU YAKUBU V ALHAJI USMAN JAUROYEL & ORS

CORAM

JOHN AFOLABI FAB1Y1

KUDIKAT MOTONMORI OLATOKUNBO KEKERE-EKUN

PARTIES

ALHAJI ISIYAKU YAKUBU APPELLANTS

ALHAJI USMAN JAUROYEL & ORS

RESPONDENTS 

AREA(S) OF LAW

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Plaintiff/ Appellant brought an action at the High Court of Mubi of the old Gongola State -now Adamawa State, against the Defendants /Respondents over a land dispute claiming the following reliefs: an injunction to restrain the Defendant or his servants, agents and privies from continuing to perpetuate the act of trespass on the Plaintiff/Appellant’s land and the sum of N40, 000.00k (Forty Thousand Naira only) as general and special damages. Pleadings were filed and exchanged between parties. The Plaintiff/ Appellant called only one witness -an official of the Ministry of Lands and Survey, applied for joinder of the 2nd and 3rd Respondents and at the same time amended his statement of claim. The Defendants called two witnesses. At the end of the trial, the trial Judge gave judgment in favour of the Defendants /Respondents. Dissatisfied with the judgment, the Plaintiff/Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal which affirmed the judgment of the trial Court. Still not satisfied the Plaintiff/Appellant has appealed to this Court.

HELD

Appeal Allowed

ISSUES

1. Could it truly be said that there were sufficiently material   conflicts   in   the evidence adduced by jthe appellant and his witness, which could have made the Court of Appeal to affirm the decision of the trial court?

2. Was the Court of Appeal right to have endorsed the finding of the trial court that the Certificate of Occupancy was fake, false and fraudulent when the respondents admitted having issued the Certificate to the appellant?

3. Was the appellant entitled to the land measuring 6,149 square metres? And if not, was the Court of Appeal not wrong to have denied appellant the smaller portion of land to which the 2nd respondent admitted as having been allotted to the appellant?

RATIONES DECIDENDI

FRAUD-DUTY OF A PARTY ALLEDGING SAME

“A party alleging fraud must discharge the onus of proof to the satisfaction of the court.” PER FABIYI JSC

FRAUD – PROOF OF

“Fraud requires a higher degree of probability in its proof. It must be pleaded with particulars adequately supplied”. PER FABIYI JSC

COMMISSION OF CRIME IN CIVIL CASES-STANDARD OF PROOF REQUIRED

“Standard of proof for commission of crime in civil cases as alleged herein is the same as in criminal cases.” PER FABIYI JSC

DECLARATION OF TITLE TO LAND – CLAIM FOR-GRANT OF

“It is settled law that in a claim for declaration of title to land as herein, the court may grant declaration over a smaller area than that claimed if the evidence before the court justifies it.” PER FABIYI JSC

CONTRADICTIONS-WHEN CAN BE FATAL

“Contradictions are fatal only if, not being minor, they go to the substance of the case. And what is material and substantial remains a question of fact.” PER DATTIJO MUHAMMAD JSC

CONTRADICTIONS-NATURE OF CONTRADICTIONS IN EVIDENCE THAT WILL RESULT IN REJECTION OF THE EVIDENCE

“The law is that it is not all contradictions in the evidence proffered and relied upon by a party in proof of its case that results in the rejection of the evidence. It is only material discrepancies which constitute substantial disparagement of the witnesses concerned, in the sense that reliance on their testimony will likely result in a miscarriage of justice that should impact negatively on the case of the party who relies on such evidence. Thus contradictions in the evidence of witnesses may not be fatal to a case especially when they are minor and do not materially affect the fundamental and crucial issues in the case”. PER MUHAMMAD JSC

FRAUD –ALLEGATION OF –HOW PROVED

“Allegation of fraud must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Such must not leave room for speculation. It is proof in the realm of probability and not fantastic possibility that is required.” PER FABIYI JSC

CASES CITED

Adesanya Vs Aderonmu (2000) 13 WRN 104 at 115 lines 10 – 35Aina v. Jinadu (1992) 4 NWLR (Pt. 233) 91 at 106Arabe v. Asaulu (1980) 5 -7 S.C.N.J. 78 at 85Eze Vs Atasie (20001 9 WRN 73 at 88;Ezeaka Befove v. Emenike (1998) 9 SCNJ 58 at 73;Famiiroti v. Agbeka (1991) 5 NWLR (Pt. 189) 1 at 13George v. Dominion Four Mills Ltd. (1963) All NLR 70 at 77; Nathaniel Nasamu V. State (1979) 6-7 SC 112Nwobodo v. Onoh (1984) 1 SCNLR 1 at 27-28Omoboriowo v. Ajasin (1984) 1 SCNLR 108Omoregle v. Aiwerioghene (1994) 1 NWLR (Pt. 321) 488 at 499Onwugbufor Vs Okoye (1996) 1 NWLR (424) 252;Shittu Vs Fashawe(2005) 14 NWLR (946) 671:Sogunle & Ors. v. Akerele & Ors (1967) NMLR 68; reported as (1980) 5-7 SCNJ 78 at 85,Udeze v. Chidebe (1990) 1 N.W.LR. (Pt. 125) 141Usiobaifo & anor V. Usiobaifo & anor (2005) 1 SCM 193

STATUTES REFERRED TO

Evidence Act 1990

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT