CHIEF DANIEL ALLISION IBULUYA & 5 ORS V CHIEF KALADIKIBO SAMUEL DIKIBO & 2 ORS

CORAM

KAWU, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT

OPUTA, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT

ASEME, JUSTICE COURT OF APPEAL

MAHMUD MOHAMMED , JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT.

IKECHI FRANCIS OGBUAGU , JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT.

PARTIES

1. CHIEF DANIEL ALLISION IBULUY A

2. LAZARUS CHUAYEKIENKA

3. APPOLOS FUA YEFIKA

4. OSIKIBO IWO

5. KITARI IYO

6. ALPHEUS OPUDUKOBIPI(For themselves and as Representing lbuluya House)

APPELLANTS 

CHIEF KALADIKIBO SAMUEL DIKIBO & 2 ORS

RESPONDENTS 

AREA(S) OF LAW

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The land dispute between the parties in this appeal arose in 1982 and the respondent won the case in both lower courts; the appellant has now challenged the findings of both courts.

HELD

The findings of the lower courts were not perverse and the appeal was dismissed.

ISSUES

1. “As the Plaintiffs/Respondents case is that the land in dispute was a result of a natural phenomenon, alluvial accretion, while the Defendants/Appellants’ case was that the land in dispute was a result of man made reclamation of land, whether the judgment of the court below affirming the judgment of the trial court in favour of the Plaintiffs/Respondents would not rightly be said to be perverse in view of the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.”?

2. Whether the court below was right in its conclusion that the trial court was not of the view that the land in dispute in this case was the same as the land in dispute on Suit No. PHC 36/1972.?

RATIONES DECIDENDI

BASIS OF JUDGMENT

“There is the need for an Appellate Court to base its decision on the correctness of a judgment and not on the reasons thereof”. Per OGBUAGU J. S. C

VISIT TO LOCUS INQUO: CRUCIAL ON DETERMINING TITLE TO LAND.

“Finding based on the visit to the locus inquo and the inspection notes made there is crucial on the issue of who has title over the land in dispute”. Per Tabai, J. S. C

ASSESSMENT OF THE CREDIBILITY OF WITNESSES IS A FUNCTION OF THE TRIAL COURT.

“It is settled law that the assessment of the credibility of witnesses in a case is primarily the function of the trial court which alone has the opportunity of seeing and hearing witnesses and therefore an appellate court has no basis for interference with findings based thereon.” Per Tabai, J. S. C

CASES CITED

1. SUNDAY ONUOHA vs THE STATE (1989) 2 N.W.L.R (Part 101) 23;

2. MADUAGWU  vs  MADUAGWU (1991) 8 N.W.L.R (Part 212) 684;

3. ONYEMAECAN  vs NWAOHAMUO (1992) N.W.L.R (Part 265) 372;

4. ASANVA vs STATE (1991) 3 N.W.L.R (Part 180) 422.

5. Sowemimo v. Alhaji Somisi & ors (1982) 1 ANLR (Pt. 1) 49;

6. Gbafe v. Gbafe (1996) 6 NWLR (pt. 455) 417; (1996) 6 SCNJ 167 @ 178;

7. Oladele v. Aromolaran II (1996) 6 NWLR (Pt.453) 180; (1996) 6 SCNJ 1);

8. Jikantoro & 6 ors. v. Dantoro & 6 ors. (2004) 5 SCNJ .152 @ 178

9. Intergrated Timber & Plywood Products Ltd. v. Union Bank Nig. PLC (2006) 12 NWLR (Pt.995) 483 @ 504; (2006) 5 SCNJ 289

STATUTES REFERRED TO

CLICK HERE TO VIEW THIS JUDGMENT