MR. VINCENT ADEEKO V. MR. EMMANUEL AMAECHI

CORAM

PARTIES

MR. VINCENT ADEEKO   APPELLANTS

MR. EMMANUEL AMAECHI RESPONDENTS

AREA(S) OF LAW

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Claimant/Respondent instituted an action at the High Court of Lagos State against the Defendant/Appellant claiming a declaration that he is the owner and entitled to the statutory right of occupancy on the land in dispute, perpetual injunction restraining the Defendant or his agents from carrying out any development activities whatsoever on the land, possession of the said land and damages. Both parties filed their pleadings alongside other necessary processes. The case went through the pre-trial conference and was eventually heard by the trial judge. At the end of trial, the court held that the Claimant/Respondent proved title in respect of one plot only and therefore granted some of the reliefs sought by him.  Dissatisfied with the decision of the trial Court, the Defendant/Appellant appealed to this Court.

HELD

Appeal Allowed

ISSUES

Whether the lower court properly evaluated the evidence adduced before it and correctly ascribed probative value to such evidence before arriving at its conclusions

RATIONES DECIDENDI

PROLIFERATION OF ISSUES -MEANING OF PROLIFERATION OF ISSUES

“Proliferation of issues means having more issues than the grounds of appeal.” PER C. E. IYIZOBA, J.C.A

OWNERSHIP OF LAND -WAYS OF PROVING OWNERSHIP OF LAND

“Five ways of proving ownership of land in Nigeria. They are:
1. By traditional evidence.
2. By production of documents of title duly authenticated and executed.
3. By acts of ownership extended over a sufficient length of time numerous and positive enough to warrant the inference of true ownership.
4. By acts of long possession and enjoyment.
5. By proof of possession of connected or adjacent land in circumstances rendering it probable that the owner of such connected or adjacent land would in addition be the owner of the land in dispute.
See the following cases: Idundu v. Okumagbe (1976) 9-10 SC 227; Omoregbe v Idugiemwanye (1985) 2 NWLR (Pt. 5) 41; Mogaji v. Cadbury (Nig) Ltd (1985) 2 NWLR (Pt. 7) 393; Ezeoke v Nwgbo(1988) 1 NWLR (Pt. 72) 616; Fasaro v. Beyioku (1988) 2 NWLR (Pt. 76) 263; Salami v. Lawal (2008) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1108) 546.”. PER C. E. IYIZOBA, J.C.A

FINDINGS OF FACTS OF A TRIAL COURT – PRINCIPLES FOR DETERMINING WHETHER THE FINDINGS OF A TRIAL COURT ARE PERVERSE

“The guiding principles for appellate Courts to ascertain whether or not findings of facts of trial Court are perverse have been laid down in so many judicial authorities. In Otukpo v. John & Anor. [2012] 3 MJSC (Pt II) 139, the Supreme Court held that where the finding or non-finding of fact by a trial court is questioned on appeal, the appellate court will seek to know the following:
a. The evidence before the court;
b. Whether the trial court accepted or rejected any evidence upon the correct perception;
c. Whether the trial court correctly approved the assessment of the evidence before it and placed the right probative value on it;
d. Whether the trial court used the imaginary scale to weigh the evidence in either side;
e. Whether the trial court upon the preponderance of evidence appreciated which side scale weighed having regard to the burden of proof.” PER C. E. IYIZOBA, J.C.A

PROOF OF DECLARATION OF TITLE TO LAND – THE ONUS OF PROOF OF DECLARATION OF TITLE TO LAND LIES ON THE PLAINTIFF

“The law is settled that the onus of proof in a suit for declaration of title rests squarely on the plaintiff who must succeed on the strength of his own case and not on the weakness of the defendant’s case.” PER C. E. IYIZOBA, J.C.A

EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE – DUTY ON THE APPELLATE COURT WHERE THERE HAS BEEN AN IMPROPER EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE

“It is trite that where there has been improper evaluation of evidence by the trial court, the appeal court can intervene and re-evaluate the evidence. See Ayorinde Vs Ayorinde & Ors (2011) ALL FWLR (Part 563) 1893 at 1928, B – C; Mogaji Vs. Odofin (1978) 4 SC 91 and Registered Trustees Of Apostolic Faith Mission Vs. James (1988) 1 NWLR (Part 70) 301.”PER C. E. IYIZOBA, J.C.A

CASES CITED

STATUTES REFERRED TO

None

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT