TRADE BANK PLC V BENILUX (NIG.) LTD
June 16, 2025ISSAC GAJI V. EMMANUEL D. PAYE
June 16, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (2003) Legalpedia (SC) 71311
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Fri May 2, 2003
Suit Number: SC.42/1999
CORAM
UWANI MUSA ABBA AJI
PARTIES
WAMADI N. EJILEMELE APPELLANTS
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
In the High court, the appellants/respondents, claimed against the defendant/appellant, A declaration that the site plan together with the Conveyance purported to have been made between the senior members of Wopara family of Rumubiakani and the Defendant, conveying a piece of the family property known and called OKANI-ORO land is obtained by fraudulent misrepresentation on the part of the Defendant and is thereby null and void and of no effect whatsoever, notwithstanding that it has been registered, a declaration that the Plaintiffs are the rightful owners in possession of the customary right of occupancy, and damages for trespass and Perpetual Injunction. At the conclusion of hearing, the learned trial Judge found for the plaintiffs. Dissatisfied, the defendant appealed to the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal in its majority decision upheld the evaluation of the evidence and the findings of the trial court and dismissed the defendant’s appeal in its entirety. Aggrieved, the defendant further appealed to the Supreme Court.
HELD
The decision of the trial judge and court of Appeal were upheld. The Appeal was dismissed. ?
ISSUES
To whom did the Wopara family through its heads and elders in accordance with the customary law of the area grant the land now being disputed?Was the Court below justified in upholding the findings of fact made by the trial Court and inferences and conclusions from those facts when either the evidence did not support the facts pleaded or the proper inferences were not drawn from the facts given in evidence or evidence given was not fully considered before conclusions were reached and inference drawn.
RATIONES DECIDENDI
REGISTRATION OF TITLE DEED DOES NOT VALIDATE FRAUDULENT TRANSFERS
“Mere registration of title deed does not validate spurious or fraudulent transfers.” Per ANTHONY I. IGUH, JSC.
WHEN WILL THE SUPREME COURT INTERFERE?
“The Supreme Court will not interfere with the concurrent judgments of the High Court and the Court of Appeal on essentially issues of fact except there is established a miscarriage of justice or violation of some principles of law or procedure.” Per ANTHONY I. IGUH, JSC.
THE VALIDITY OF TRANSFER OF FAMILY LAND
“A transfer of family land other than by the head thereof or the head and principal members of the family is absolutely void ab initio. So, too, as the head of a family cannot transfer family land as his own exclusive personal property, such a transfer by him is void ab initio.” Per ANTHONY I. IGUH, JSC.
DUTY OF THE TRIAL COURT IN EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE
“The evaluation of evidence and the ascription of probative value to such evidence are the primary function of a court of trial which saw, heard and assessed the witnesses.” Per ANTHONY I. IGUH, JSC.
CASES CITED
Agbloe V. Sappor (1947) 12 W.A.C.A. 187Akinfolarin V. Akinola (1994) 3 N.W.L.R. (Part 335) 659 at 682.City Property Development Ltd. V. Attorney-General Lagos State and others (1976) 1 S.C. 71 at 110, (1976) All N.L.R. 24 at 44.Akinloye and Another V. Eyiyola and others (1968) N.M.L.R. 92 at 95Woluchem V. Gudi (1981) 5 S.C. 291 at 320.Lababedi and Another V. Lagos Metal Industries (Nig) Ltd & Another (1973) 8 N.S.C.C. 1. National Insurance Corporation of Nigeria V. Power and Industrial Engineering Co. Ltd. (1986) 1 N.W.L.R. (Part 14) 1 at 36
STATUTES REFERRED TO
None
