May 11, 2025
Legalpedia Citation: (2014-01) Legalpedia (SC) 51811 In the Supreme Court of Nigeria Fri Jan 17, 2014 Suit Number: SC.44/2002 CORAM PARTIES 1. ALHAJI SAFIANU AMINU 2. ALHAJI […]
CORAM
PARTIES
1. ALHAJI SAFIANU AMINU
2. ALHAJI ABASI WALI
3. ALHAJI ISA (For Appellants themselves and as representatives of Balogun Osolo Family)
APPELLANTS
HASSAN & ORS
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The Plaintiffs who are Respondents in this appeal brought an action against the Defendants/ Appellants claiming that they are entitled to the grant of Certificate of Occupancy in respect of a land, damages for trespass committed by the Defendants and an injunction retraining the Defendants/Appellants from further acts of trespass. The Defendants/Appellants filed their statement of defence and counter claimed seeking some reliefs. After consideration of the evidence before the court, the Trial judge delivered judgment in favour of the Defendants/Appellants. Not satisfied the Plaintiffs/Appellants appealed to the Court of Appeal. The Court below set aside the judgment of the trial court. The Defendants/Appellants have now appealed to the Supreme Court.
HELD
Appeal dismissed
ISSUES
1. Whether the learned justices of the Court of Appeal were right to have held that Exhibit E was inadmissible on the ground that it was not pleaded, and did not comply with section 34 of the Evidence Act and could not operate as res judicata against the respondents ?
2. Whether the learned justices of the Court of Appeal were right to have held that Exhibits G – G1 were inadmissible on the ground that they were not pleaded” ?
RATIONES DECIDENDI
BURDEN OF PROOF- ON WHO LIES THE BURDEN TO PROVE IN CIVIL CASES
“… I would like to reiterate what applies in practice and that is seen in the case of: Oyovbiare v Onamurhomu (1999) 10 NWLR (Pt. 621) 23 at 34 – 35 (SC) wherein it was held that the general rule in civil cases is that the burden of proof rests upon the party who substantially asserts the affirmative before the evidence is gone into. The position therefore is that the burden of proof lies on the person who would fail, assuming no evidence had been adduced on either side. Also in respect of particular facts, the burden rests on the party against whom judgment would be given if no evidence were produced in respect of those facts. Once that party produces the evidence that would satisfy the court then the burden shits on the party against whom judgment would be given if no more evidence were adduced.” PER PETER-ODILI, JSC
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE-WHETHER DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE MUST BE PLEADED TO BE ADMISSIBLE IN EVIDENCE
“It is to be said that documentary evidence needs not be specifically pleaded to be admissible in evidence so long as facts and not the evidence by which such a document is covered are expressly pleaded. Consequently, where the contents of a document are material, it shall be sufficient in any pleading to avert the effect thereof as briefly as possible without setting out the whole or any part thereof, unless the precise words of the document or any part thereof are or any part thereof are material.” PER PETER-ODILI, JSC
PLEADINGS-DUTY OF THE TRIAL COURTS TO DISCOUNTENANCE EVIDENCE GIVEN IN RESPECT OF FACTS NOT PLEADED
“It is basic that in civil cases, issues are settled on pleadings and courts should not allow evidence to be given in respect of facts not pleaded. If such evidence is inadvertently received, it is the duty of the trial judge to discountenance it as it goes to no issue”. PER PETER-ODILI, JSC
INTERFERENCE WITH FINDING OF FACT OF THE LOWER COURT- INSTANCES WHERE AN APPELLATE COURT WOULD DISTURB THE FINDING OF FACT OF A TRIAL COURT
“In respect to the matter of laches and acquiescence which the Court of Appeal departed from the view of the trial court on the plea of laches and acquiescence. The court below was right to hold that the trial court had failed to properly appraise the evidence with regard to the appellants (now respondents) plea of laches and acquiescence and so had no difficulty in reverse the finding of the trial court that the plea did not apply in the counter-claim. In this regard, this is one of those instances where an appellate court would disturb the finding of fact of a trial court. See the case of Oyovbiare v Omamurhomu (1999) 10 NWLR (Pt. 621) 23 at 35 & 41 SC. An appellate court should be slow to disturb a finding of fact made by a trial court which is supported by evidence unless it is satisfied that such finding is unsound. Lengbe v Imale (1959) WNLR 325.”PER PETER-ODILI, JSC
RULE OF PLEADINGS-WHETHER MATERIAL FACTS MUST BE PLEADED TO BE ADMISSIBLE IN EVIDENCE
“It is known to be a cardinal rule of pleadings that material facts, to be admissible in evidence must be pleaded. Consequently, none of the parties is allowed to raise at the trial of a suit, an issue of fact which has not been pleaded by him. Therefore, where such facts are not pleaded, they are in law inadmissible in evidence and where inadvertently or wrongly admitted go to no issue and should be disregarded as irrelevant to issues properly raised by the pleadings”. PER PETER-ODILI, JSC
PRESUMPTION OF OWNERSHIP- PRESUMPTION OF OWNERSHIP WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF SECTION 146 OF THE EVIDENCE ACT, CAP E14 OF THE LAWS OF THE FEDERATION
“This must be looked at within the purview of Section 146 Evidence Act which prescribes thus: “146. When the question is whether any person is owner of anything of which he is shown to be in possession, the burden of proving that he is not the owner is on the person who affirms that he is not the owner.” The situation on ground seem to make relevant and applicable the decision of this court in Raphael Udeze & Ors v. Paul Chidebe & Ors. (1990) 1 SC. 148 per Nnaemeka-Agu JSC wherein he stated at pages 160 – 161 thus: “It is left for me to mention that the courts below also found that although the appellants pleaded that the respondents were their customary tenants who occupy the land in dispute on payment of tribute, they failed to prove such tenancy. It is significant to note that a customary tenants is in possession of his holding during good behavior and until it is forfeited for misbehavior. Once it is the case that such a person is a customary tenant and therefore in possession, then like any other person in possession of land, there is a presumption of ownership in his favour. Although the presumption is rebuttable to due proof of a tenancy, the onus is on the adversary to rebut it if he can.” PER PETER-ODILI, JSC
PRESUMPTION OF OWNERSHIP- WHETHER THE LAW PRESUMES THAT DEFENDANTS IN EXCLUSIVE POSSESSION OF A LAND IN DISPUTE ARE OWNERS OF THE LAND UNTIL THE CONTRARY IS PROVEN
“It is a settled principle of law that a claim which seeks a declaration that the defendants are customary tenants of the plaintiff and other consequential reliefs emanating there from postulates that the defendants are in exclusive possession of the land in disputes. And by the operation of Section 146 of the Evidence Act, Cap E14 of the Laws of the Federation, there is presumption that the defendants in such exclusive possession are the owners of the land in dispute until the contrary is proved to rebut that presumption. The only way to rebut the presumption is by strict proof of the alleged customary tenancy. That is the danger of a plea founded on the allegation of customary tenancy.” PER PETER-ODILI, JSC
OBJECTION TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF A DOCUMENT- WHEN SHOULD OBJECTION TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF A DOCUMENT SOUGHT TO BE TENDERED IN EVIDENCE BE RAISED AND EFFECT OF NOT RAISING SAME
“The rule of evidence and practice in civil as well as in criminal cases prescribes that an objection to the admissibility of a document sought to be tendered in evidence is immediately taken when it is offered in evidence. Barring some exceptions where by law certain documents are rendered inadmissible for failure to comply with the provisions of such law, the rule remains inviolate that where objection has not been raised by the opposing party to the reception in evidence of a document or other evidence, the document or evidence would be admitted and the opposing party would for all time hold his peace and cannot complain thereafter about that admission. PER PETER-ODILI, JSC
ADMISSIBILITY OF A DOCUMENT- WHETHER A TRIAL COURT OR PARTIES TO AN ACTION HAVE THE POWER TO ADMIT WITHOUT OBJECTION, A DOCUMENT THAT IS NOT ADMISSIBLE IN LAW
“Neither a trial court nor the parties to an action has any power to admit without objection, a document that is in no way and under no circumstances admissible in law. If such a document is wrongfully received in evidence before the trial court, an appellate court has an inherent jurisdiction to exclude it even where no objection was raised to its going in at the Lower court. PER PETER-ODILI, JSC
PLEADINGS- DUTY OF THE TRIAL COURT NOT TO ALLOW EVIDENCE TO BE GIVEN IN RESPECT OF FACTS NOT PLEADED
“It is settled law that in civil cases, issues are settled on the pleadings, and the court should not allow evidence to be given in respect of facts not pleaded. If however, such evidence is inadvertently received, it is the duty of the trial judge to discountenance it because it goes to no issue. Parties are bound by their pleadings, and the issues joined therein. Thus, the court must be on its guard so that it does not deviate from the case made by each party in the pleadings; otherwise it will unwittingly be making for the parties an entirely new case. PER PETER-ODILI, JSC
ADMISSIBILITY OF DOCUMENT- WHETHER THE APPELLATE COURT HAS JURISDICTION TO EXCLUDE AND DISCOUNTENANCE A DOCUMENT WHICH WAS UNLAWFULLY RECEIVED IN EVIDENCE AT THE TRIAL COURT EVEN THOUGH COUNSEL AT THE TRIAL DID NOT OBJECT TO ITS GOING INTO EVIDENCE
“It is not the law that once a document is received in evidence without objection by a party, then such a party is forever automatically stopped, even in the appellate court from raising the issue of its admissibility. Thus, if a document is unlawfully received in evidence at the trial court, an appellate court has inherent jurisdiction to exclude and discountenance the document even though counsel at the trial did not object to its going into evidence. It goes without saying therefore that although a document was unlawfully received in evidence without objection by or on behalf of the appellant, it would still be open to him in the appellate court especially where such an appellant has in fact suffered injustice as a result, or a miscarriage of justice occasioned as a result, to object to it since it is the duty of the appellate court to excluded that inadmissible evidence which was wrongly received in evidence at the trial. PER PETER-ODILI, JSC
PLEADINGS- OBJECT OF PLEADINGS
“Let me say it right away that the object of pleadings is to require each party to give notice to his opponent with clarity and precision of the case which he is to meet. Each party is expected to place his cards on the table face-up. This is essential to prevent any of the parties from being taken by surprise and enable them frame and prepare their cases for trial”. PER FABIYI,JSC
CASES CITED
Oseni v Dawodu (1994) 4 NWLR (Pt.339) 390 at 404;Alase v Olori-Olu (1965) NMLR 66 at 77;Olukade v Alade (1976) 1 All NLR (Pt. 1) 67;Yaya v Mopgoga (1947) 12 WACA 132 at 133;Ajayi v Fisher (1956) SCNLR 279;Esso West African Incorporated v Alli (1968);Akunne v Ekwuno (1952) 14WACA 59;Olukade v Alade (1976) All NLR 57 at 61 – 62;Etim v Ekpe (1983) 1 SCNLR 120;Owonyin v Omotosho (1961) 2 SCNLR 57;Yassin v Barclays Bank D.C.O. (1968) 1 All NLR 171;Alashe v Olori-Ilu (1964) 1 All NLR 390 at 397Thanni v Saibu (1977) 2 SC 88 at 114;U.A.C Ltd v Owoade (1954) 13 WACA 207Shonekan v. Smith (1964) 1All NLR 313Ayinde v. Salawu (1989) NWLR(Pt. 109) 297 at 315;Dada v. Bankole (2008)1 SC (Pt.111) 219 at 230Lengbe v Imale (1959) WNLR 325Ipinlaiye v Olukotun (1996) 6 NWLR (Pt.453) 148 at 169;Etim v Ekpe (1983) 1 SCNLR 120Idahosa v. Orasanye (1959) 4 FSC 166;NIPC Ltd. v. Thomson Organisation (1969) NMLR 99 at 104;Ogbodo v. Adelugba (1971) 1 All NLR 68
STATUTES REFERRED TO
Cap E14 of the Laws of the Federation 2004
CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT