MRS LOIS CHITURU UKEJE & ANOR V MRS CLADYS ADA UKEJE

CORAM

PARTIES

1. MRS LOIS CHITURU UKEJE2. ENYINNAYA LAZARUS UKEJE APPELLANTS

MRS CLADYS ADA UKEJE

RESPONDENTS 

AREA(S) OF LAW

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The deceased died intestate leaving four children of the marriage and wife. Upon the death of the deceased, the 1st and 2nd Defendants (now Appellants, who are mother and son) obtained Letters of Administration for and over the deceased’s estate. The Plaintiff (now Respondent) instituted an action before the High Court claiming to be entitled to partake in the sharing of her late father’s estate as his daughter, an order that the grant of Letters of Administration made to the 1st and 2nd Appellants be revoked and declared null and void, an order of injunction restraining the 1st and 2nd Appellants from administering the estate of the deceased and relying on the Letters of Administration amongst other reliefs. Pleading were filed and exchanged with witnesses called to give evidence by parties, at the end of the trial, learned trial judge gave judgment in favour of the Plaintiff/Respondent. Dissatisfied with the judgment, Appellants appealed to the Court of Appeal, wherein the lower Court dismissed the appeal. The Defendant/Appellants still not satisfied with the decision of the lower court, have appealed to the Supreme Court.

HELD

Appeal Dismissed

ISSUES

1. Whether the respondent as plaintiff proved that she is a biological daughter of L.O. Ukeje (deceased).Was the evidence of DW8 discredited in the High Court Did the trial court arrive at its decision after following the proper guidelines for decision making laid down by the Supreme Court?

RATIONES DECIDENDI

CONCURRENT FINDINGS OF FACT BY LOWER COURTS- ATTITUDE OF THE SUPREME COURT THERETO

“It is settled law that unless there are special circumstances shown, this court will not disturb the concurrent findings of the fact made by the lower courts. PER ONNOGHEN JSC

FRAUD – WHEN ALLEGED -PROOF OF

“The long settled position of the law is that when fraud is being alleged in a suit it must be pleaded, particulars given and established in evidence by proof beyond reasonable doubt.” PER RHODES- VIVOUR JSC

CONCURRENT FINDING OF FACT-WHEN AN APPELLATE COURT CAN REVERSE SAME

“This court would be quick to reverse concurrent finding of fact if there was miscarriage of justice or a violation of some principle of law or procedure or the finding is found to be perverse”. PER RHODES-VIVOUR JSC

DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE – WHERE SUPPORTED BY ORAL EVIDENCE- POSITION OF THE LAW

“The position of the law is that once documentary evidence supports oral evidence , such oral evidence become more credible. The reasoning is premised on the fact and the law that documentary evidence serves as a hanger from which to assess oral testimony.” PER RHODES- VIVOUR JSC

ALLEGATION BEFORE A COURT- DUTY OF A PARTY THERETO

“It is not enough for a party to make an allegation before a court; he must lead credible evidence to prove same.” PER OKORO JSC

FINDINGS OF FACTS BY THE LOWER COURTS- WHETHER THE SUPREME COURT CAN DISTURB SAME

“It is therefore elementary but well settled that unless there are special circumstances shown by the appellants; it is not open to this court to disturb the said finding of fact made by both the trial and lower courts.” PER OGUNBIYI JSC

EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE- DUTY OF COURT WITH RESPECT TO

“It is well settled that it is the duty of the trial court which saw and heard witnesses to evaluate the evidence and pronounce on their credibility and ascribe probative value.” PER RHODES- VIVOUR JSC

EVIDENCE OF A WITNESS-WHEN A JUDGE CAN ATTACH WEIGHT THEREON

“A trial judge is expected to watch the demeanour of the witness, to see how readily he answers questions. Whether he gesticulates. His reaction when confronted with evidence be it documentary which suggest that his testimony is untrue. It is only after the above that the judge can attach weight to the evidence of a witness”. PER RHODES- VIVOUR JSC

DOCUMENT-PRESUMPTION OF GENUINENESS-SECTION 146(1) OF THE EVIDENCE ACT

“The court should presume every document purporting to be certificate, certified copy or other document which is by law declared to be admissible as evidence of any particular fact and which purport to be duly certified by any officer in Nigeria who is duly authorized in that behalf to be genuine, provided that such document is substantially in the form and purports to be executed in the manner directed by law in that behalf.” PER OKORO JSC

CONCURRENT FINDINGS OF LOWER COURTS-CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE THE SUPREME COURT CAN DISTURB SAME

“The circumstance or exception to the above general principle include the following:-
(a) if such findings of fact are made on inadmissible evidence or
(b) if such findings of fact cannot be related to any evidence before the court; or
(c) where such findings of fact are on matters not pleaded: or
(d) where, on the whole fact before the trial court and the Court of Appeal, the findings are manifestly perverse.” PER ONNOGHEN JSC

CASES CITED

CAN vs Lamibo & 4 Ors 2012 sc (pt. ii) p 163Cardoso vs Daniels (1986) 2 NWLR (PT 20) 1Chinwedu  vs Mbamali (1980) 3- 4 s31 @ 75;Kim vs State 1992 4 NWLR pt 233 p. 17Kimdey & Ors  vs  Military Governor of Gongola State & Ors 1988 Vol 19 NSCC p 827Mrs Olajide Okelola  vs Adebisi Adeleke (2004) 13 NWLR (PT 890) 307R.V.Benkay Nig Ltd vs Cadbury Nig PLC 2012 3SC (pt. iii) p.169Ogbu vs Wokoma (2005)14 NWLR (pt. 944) 118 @ 123Omoregbe  vs  Lawani 1980  3-4  SC p.117Sanusi  vs  Ameyogun 1992 4 NWLR pt. 237 p. 527Union Bank Plc  vs Astra Builders (WA) Ltd (2010)5 NWLR (Pt 1186)1

STATUTES REFERRED TO

The 1979 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria

The 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria

Evidence Act 2011

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT