NWANKWO OGUANUHU & ORS VS DR. EMMANUEL I. CHIEGBOKA

CORAM

PARTIES

1. NWANKWO OGUANUHU

2. OBIORA OGUANUHU

3. GILBERT OGUANUHU

APPELLANTS 

 DR. EMMANUEL I. CHIEGBOKA

RESPONDENTS 

AREA(S) OF LAW

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Plaintiff/Respondent instituted an action for declaration of title to a customary piece of land at the Customary Court where judgment was given in his favour. But the Defendant/Appellant not satisfied appealled to the Magistrate court where the decision of the Customary Court was reversed. The  Plaintiff/Respondent made further appeal to the Court of Appeal and  the court held in his favour, this prompted the Defendant/Appellant to make further appeal to the apex court.?

HELD

Appeal dismissed?

ISSUES

1. Whether the land in dispute was part of the land of Nwokoye Ezeabalam ?

RATIONES DECIDENDI

Duty of the Court – to attach Probative Value to Evidence before it

‘It is the primary duty of the court to ascribe due probative value on the evidence placed before it, when the trial court fails to perform this duty, then an appellate court can step in to perform such function. Even so the appellate court is cautious when performing this function and can only do so when the demeanor of witnesses is not in question.’ Suleiman Galadima JSC

Evidence Act – What Constitute Admission?

‘As to the principle pertaining to admission Section 19 of the Evidence Act defines it as ‘a statement oral or documentary which suggests any inference as to any fact in issue or relevant fact and which is made by any person’. But such admission must be clear and unequivocal and not based on misapprehension. Facts admitted need not be proved’-Suleiman Galadima JSC

Duty of the Court -Circumstances where the appellate court can interfere with the findings of the trial court

‘An appellate court will only interfere with findings of fact of a trial court if it is shown that the conclusion reached is not in tune with the current or flow of evidence or that the decision was wrong or perverse.
As it pertains to the concurrent findings of two lower courts an appellate court will not interfere unless there be exceptional circumstances to justify such interference. Nor would there be interference the judgment of two lower courts unless there are substantial errors in law or procedure leading to miscarriage of justice’ Suleiman Galadima JSC.

Duty of the Court – Duty not to substitute fact by the Appellate Court

‘Appellate court cannot and it ought not to substitute its own view of fact for those of the trial court which heard evidence and watched the demeanour of witnesses as they testified.
However, a trial court in the course of evaluating evidence must put all evidence with probative value adduced by each side on an imaginary scale to see which side the scale tilts’ Suleiman Galadima JSC

CASES CITED

Atolagbe V Shorun(1985)1 NWLR(pt.2)360 Naruma & Sons Ltd V N.B.T.C LTD(1989)2 NWLR(pt.106)730Okafor V Idigo(1984)1 SCNLR 481 at 512Mogaji V Odofin(1978)4 SC.91Bello V Eweka(1981)1 SC 101 at 102Maridex Turst Ltd V Nimb Ltd(2001)4 SC.(pt.1)25

STATUTES REFERRED TO

Evidence Act.

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT