Alhaji Raufu Gbadamosi V. Olaitan Dairo (2007)
LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report
MUSDAPHER, J.S.C
In the High Court of Justice of Oyo State, in the Ibadan judicial division and in suit No. 1/344/83, and in his writ of summons, the plaintiff claimed against the defendant the following reliefs:
“(i) Declaration of title to a certificate of occupancy in respect of the piece or parcel of land situate, lying and being at Olojuoro road, Ibadan.
(ii) The sum of N15,000 (Fifteen Thousand Naira) being special and general damages suffered by the plaintiff in consequence of continuing acts of trespass being committed by the defendant on the said land.
(iii) An Order of perpetual injunction restraining the defendant, his servants or agents or any person claiming through or under him from committing any further acts of trespass on the land.”Pleadings were ordered, filed and exchanged. By paragraph 24 of the statement of claim the following particulars of damages claimed were stated thus:
“Particulars of Damages
(a) Cost of building demolished N5,800(b) Cost of 6000 cement blocks
removed and/or destroyed at
70 kobo per block N4,200
(c) General Damages N5,000
Total N15,000
The defendant also filed a counterclaim against the plaintiff. Paragraph 30 of the amended statement of defence and counter-claim provided:
“(1) A declaration that the defendant is entitled to a statutory right of occupancy over all that piece or parcel of land situate, lying and being at Oloro Olojuoro road, Ibadan, a place within 5 Kilometers to Mapo Hall, Ibadan, which is particularly shown on survey plan No. MAK/240/84
of 29th December, 1984.
(2)The sum of N 10,000.00 being special and general damages for trespass committed by the plaintiff between March 1978 and March 1980 of the said land in dispute.
(3) An order of perpetual injunction restraining the plaintiff his servants agents or any person claiming through or under him from committing further trespass on the land.
Particulars of Damages Special Damages
1500 blocks at 50k Each N750.00
2 lorry loads of sand at N25 each N50.00
1 lorry load of gravels at N50 each N50.00
1 signboard N10.00
Workmanship and cost of cement
Paid to bricklayer N200.00
Total: N 1,060.00
General damages N8.940.00
Grand total N10.000.00
At the trial before the High court, the plaintiff testified and called 8 witnesses through whom a number of documents including survey plans were tendered. The defendant in answer to the plaintiff’s case and in order to prove the counter-claim called 4 witnesses including himself. After the conclusion of the trial and in his judgment delivered the 4th of July 1986, the learned trial judge found for the plaintiff and dismissed the defendant’s counter-claim. The defendant felt unhappy with the decision and appealed to the Court of Appeal. One Alhaji Lamidi Afolabi successfully sought leave of the Court of Appeal to appeal as an intervener. After the consideration and the determination of all the issues submitted to it, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals of both the defendant and the intervener and affirmed the decision of the trial Court in both the plaintiff’s claims which was granted, and the defendant’s counter-claim which was dismissed: see Gbadamosi v. Dairo (2001) 6 NWLR (Pt. 708)
- It is against the dismissal of his appeal that the defendant hereinafter referred to as the appellant (and the plaintiff, the respondent) has now further appealed to this court with the leave of the Court of Appeal. The notice of appeal contains 3 grounds of appeal and with the leave of this court an additional ground of appeal was allowed to be argued on behalf of the appellant. The intervener, Alhaji Lamidi Afolabi has also filed a notice of appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeal, but has failed to appear or file any brief in this court. I deem the notice of appeal filed by the intervener as abandoned and I accordingly strike it out. But before the examination of the grounds of appeal filed by the appellant and the distilled issues for determination submitted in the briefs by counsel for the determination of the appeal, it shall be necessary to set out the back ground facts of the case.
The respondent’s case on the pleadings and the evidence is that the land in dispute is a portion of a larger tract of land at Olojuoro area of Ibadan belonging to the Aleshinloye family. The respondent purchased the land in dispute from one Dorcas Ajirinnibi Amoa under native law and custom. The land was handed over to him in the presence of witnesses and eventually the vendor executed a deed of Workmanship and cost of cement paid to bricklayer conveyance in his favour which was registered as No. 50 at page 50 in volume 2278 of Ibadan Land’s Registry. As mentioned above, the land claimed by the respondent was part of a larger tract of land which was the subject matter of a court action in suit No. 1/228/64 between the Aleshinloye family as the plaintiffs and one Chief S. Adewumi as the defendant. The aforesaid suit was resolved by a compromise between the parties, by which exhibit ‘A’ in these proceedings conveys the position of the parties.
The plaintiffs in the action withdrew it. The terms of settlement were that in consideration of payment made by Adewumi of N 15,000.00, 117 acres out of the total land in dispute measuring 137 acres were to go to him whilst 20 acres were to be retained by Alesinloye family. PW 1 was one of the members of Alesinloye family who shared out of the twenty acres and he sold his portion of it to diverse purchasers including Dorcas Ajirinnibi who sold the land in dispute to the respondent. That part of the land bought by the respondent is at the northern end of the land in dispute in suit No. 1/ 228/64 and is the land in dispute in this action. It was the case of the respondent that the parcel of land he purchased from Dorcas Ajirinnibi consisted of two plots, he made the purchase in 1977 and a deed of conveyance was granted to him in 1978. He immediately cleared the land and let his friend a motor mechanic into one of the plots and commenced building on one of the plots. He engaged PW3, who was also one of the purchasers of the Aleshinloye family land in the area, as a contractor to erect buildings for him. He stopped the building operation sometimes later 1978 due to financial constraint.
The building reached lintel level and there was 6000 blocks on the land when he suspended the building operation. The respondent claimed that it was in 1980 when the appellant came and destroyed the respondent’s building and carted away or destroyed the blocks.
For the appellant, his case was that he bought the land in dispute from Adewumi and after completing payment he caused a wall fence two feet high to be built round the land. The land consisted of plots 16 and 17 of the Adewumi layout and that he sold plot 16 to Alhaji Afolabi (the intervener). In 1980 when he wanted to commence building, he found the land overgrown with weeds and on clearing, he found that his 2ft wall fence had been pulled down. He then had the land bulldozed and commenced building on the land. The learned trial Judge rightly in my view settled the issue properly when at the beginning of his judgment he stated:
“The issue to be decided is relatively simple. It is whether the land in dispute in this case properly belong to the Alesinloye family or to Chief Adewumi arising from the terms of settlement reported in exhibit ‘A’ before the same was sold to the different purchasers who are the disputants in this action.” As mentioned above, the learned trial Judge found for the respondent. He particularly found the parties were referring to the same piece of land as the land in dispute and that the land in dispute fell on the northern end of the land in the suit No. 1/224/64 and that
the land in dispute belonged to the Alesinloye family. Having found the Alesinloye family as the radical owners of the land in dispute, the learned trial Judge found for the respondent.
The Court of Appeal affirmed the decision and clearly stated that the issue of the identity of the land in dispute was not an issue since the parties by their evidence and pleadings were referring to the same piece of land, the Court of Appeal also made a concurrent finding on the fact as to who was the radical owner of the land in dispute: was it the Alesinloye family or Chief S. B. Adewumi The Court of Appeal also found the Alesinloye family is the radical owner of the land in dispute and accordingly also found for the respondent. Now, the learned counsel for the appellant has identified and submitted 4 issues arising for the determination of the appeal:
“1. Whether the court below has not erred in law and came to the wrong decision when without giving any hearing on the point to the appellant, it based the dismissal of the appeal on the fresh point of law taken suo motu to wit: non joinder of issue on the location of the 20 acres of land Alesinloye family allegedly reserved for itself and therefore the correct location of the identity of the plots in dispute alleged have fallen within it the 20 acres.
- Whether the court below has not erred in law and came to a wrong decision when it relied and based its decision on the evidence of PW 1 which was not only at variance with the statement of claim but which also contradicted exhibit “A”, “E” and “F” including the finding of the trial to the effect that the 20 acres Alesinloye family reserved for itself it at the northern tip of the whole land.”
- Whether the court below was not wrong in law when it held that since the parties knew the land, identity of the land was not an issue.
Whether the decision of the court below based on fresh points of law raised and argued in the respondent’s reply brief in answer to the intervener’s was filed not only out of time and without leave of court, but also after the appeal had been heard and adjourned for judgment, was not perverse, erroneous in law, and has occasioned miscarriage of justice.”
The issues formulated by the appellant above lack clarity. They are obscure and difficult to comprehend. The issues formulated by the respondent appear to be clearer. They read as follows:
“1. Whether the defendant/appellant at the trial and at the Court of Appeal proved its counter-claim to warrant the setting aside of the concurrent findings of fact that the land in dispute felt within the 20 acres of land reserved for the Alesinloye family.
Whether in the light of the Court of Appeal Rules, Order 6 rule 9(5) and having filed his brief of argument and being absent and unrepresented without cause, the appellant can complain for a denial of fair hearing. Whether the defendant/appellant can be heard to complain that an issue generally traversed on the pleadings but admitted in evidence amounts to a fresh point of law taken suo moto. Whether the reply brief filed in answer to the intervener’s brief of argument can be said to result in a miscarriage of justice or perverse findings by the Court of Appeal having been distilled from the appellant’s additional ground of appeal.”
But I shall nevertheless deal with this appeal on the basis of the appellant’s brief.
Issues 1 and 3
The learned counsel for the appellant discussed issues 1 and 3 together. The two issues arise from the question of the proper location and therefore the identity of the two plots of land in dispute between the parties. It is argued that the court below was in error to have held that the appellant did not join issues with the respondent on the location and identity of the 20 acres Alesinloye family reserved for itself under exhibit A and therefore the location and identity of the 2 plots in dispute and claimed by the respondent was not in issue. It is submitted further that the court below introduced the issue of the identity and location of the 20 acres suo moto without giving opportunity to the parties to address the court on the issue. It is submitted that the court below misconstrued the case of the appellant, when the appellant argued that the two plots the respondent claimed had not been properly and rightly located on the respondent’s survey plan, exhibit G. It is submitted that the identity of the land and its location i.e. whether it fell within the 20 acres of the Alesinloye family or within the 117 acres of Chief Adewumi was the fundamental matter to be tried, so the question of joining issues on the location of the two plots was clearly recognized by the trial Judge. It is further contented that the Court of Appeal was in error to have raised the issue suo motu without affording the parties the opportunity of addressing the court of the point. Learned counsel referred to and relied on the case of Chief Ejowhomu v. Edok-Eter Mandelas Ltd. (1986) 5 NWLR (Pt 39) 1. The court was wrong to raise issue of the identity and location of the land without affording the appellant the opportunity to address on it.
The issue of identity of the land in an action for declaration of title to land is very fundamental. The onus is on the plaintiff seeking the declaration to establish the precise identity of the land he is seeking the declaration. See for example Ezukwu v. Ukachukwu (2004) 17 NWLR (Pt. 902) 227; Lordye v.Lhyambe (2000) 15 NWLR (Pt. 692) 675. But where the area of land in dispute is well known to the parties, the question of proof of the identity of the land does not arise. In such a situation, it cannot be contended that the area claimed of the land in dispute is uncertain. See Akinterinwa v. Oladunjoye (2000) 6 NWLR (Pt. 659) 92. It must be emphasized that in an action where the plaintiff claims a declaration of title to land and fails to give the exact extent and identity of the land he is claiming, his action should be dismissed See Rllfai v. Ricketts 2 WACA 95; Udofia v. Afia 6 WACA 216. See also Arabe v. Asanlu (1980) 5- 7 SC 78.
In the instant case from the pleadings and the evidence, it is very clear that the parties in this case know the land in dispute. Therefore the identity of the land is not an issue. The respondent in his statement of claim pleaded as paragraph 3 there of: “The land in dispute is situate, lying and being at Olojuoro road, Ibadan and is more particularly described and delineated on survey plan No. KESH/Y/17506 dated 27th August, 1984 drawn by Alhaji Y.O. Keshinro license surveyor.”
In his statement of defence and counter-claim, the appellant merely made a general denial of all the averments contained in the statement of claim, he did not make any specific denial of the averment relating to the identity of the land. The other pieces of evidence clearly in my view make it clear that the parties are aware of the land in dispute i.e. it was because he bulldozed the land the respondent was claiming, the appellant was arrested at the instance of the respondent. In any event, the 2nd DW in his evidence before the trial court stated. (see from page 53 of the printed record):
“I first knew the plaintiff when he caused the Police to arrest the defendant. I know the land in dispute at Olojuoro road xxxxxx”
It is also now settled law that requires no citation of any authority, that the identity of land in a land dispute will only be in issue if and only if the defendant in his statement of defence makes it one. If he disputes specifically either the area or the location or the features shown in the plaintiff’s plan, then the identity of the land becomes an issue to be tried. In my view both the trial court and the Court of Appeal were right in their decision that the identity of the land in dispute was not an issue joined in the pleadings to be tried.
What was an issue was clearly whether the land in dispute form part of the land reserved for Alesinloye family or whether it formed part of the land purchased by Chief Adewumi. The trial court as affirmed by the Court of Appeal considered the entire evidence adduced before it and came to the conclusion on the evidence accepted by it, that the land in dispute fell within the Alesinloye family land. The learned trial Judge fully evaluated and appraised the entire evidence led before him. See from pages 67 – 70, when he held at page 70:
“It would therefore appear that what Chief Adewumi did was to constrict the northern part of the land in dispute in suit 1/228/64 as shown in exhibit “F” and thereafter excise from the constricted land the area eaten up by the express way and then came up with the story that when he wanted to take his 117 acres the total land he found there was only 117 acres and he took all. x x xxxx xxx x
The result I reach is that the plans used by Adewumi, that is exhibits “G” and “H” by which he appropriated the whole land in dispute in suit 1/228/64 to himself have no relevance to the area in that dispute and so not relevant to the terms of settlement recorded in exhibit “A” .
The learned trial Judge concluded:
“I find that which ever way one interprets the agreement in exhibit ‘A’ having regard to the evidence concerning Owode market and the evidence that Adewumi was to take his own 117 acres from the south of the land in dispute upwards and the Alesinloye family to take their so acres at the northern tip, the land in dispute in this case is clearly within the area reserved for Alesinloye family.”
It is now settled law, that it is the primary responsibility of the trial court which saw and heard witnesses to evaluate the evidence and pronounce on their credibility or probative value and not the appellate court which neither heard the witnesses nor saw them to observe their demeanors in the witness box. It follows therefore that when a trial court unquestionably evaluates the evidence and appraises the facts of a case, it is not the business of the appellate court to substitute its own views for the views of the trial court. Mogaji v. Odofin (1978) 4 SC 91; Odofin v. Ayoola (1984) 11 SC 72; Ezukwu v. Okachukwu supra. It is only where the trial Judge abdicates his sacred duty of evaluation of the evidence and the approbation of weight thereto, or when he demonstrates that he had not taken proper advantage of his having heard and seen the witnesses testify, the matter becomes at large for the appellate court to evaluate the evidence provided the exercise does not involve credibility. See: Ebba v. Ogodo (1984) 1 SCNLR 372.
In the instant case, the Court of Appeal also affirmed the decision of the trial court. It is a policy of the Supreme Court for a longtime not to disturb concurrent findings of two lower courts unless special circumstances exist to warrant interference. Such special circumstances include:
(a) perverse findings;
(b) error in procedural or substantive law occasioning a miscarriage of justice.
In this case the concurrent finding of the High Court and the Court of Appeal were not perverse and will not be interfered with by me. See Okulate v.Awosanya (2000) 2 NWLR (Pt. 646) 530; Chinwendu v. Mbamali (1980) 3 – 4 SC 31; Biariko v. Edeh-Ogwuile (2001) 12 NWLR (Pt. 726) p.235.
In the result, these issues 1 and 3 dealing with the question whether the identity of the land in dispute is joined on the pleadings by the parties for proof, in my view does not arise, the parties knew the land in dispute and as such the respondent had no need to prove the identity or the location of the land in dispute. The other issue is whether the land in dispute is situated within the land of the Alesinloye family or the land bought by Chief Adewumi. As shown above, the learned trial judge and the Court of Appeal made concurrent findings of fact that the land in
dispute fell within the Alesinloye family land.
The other point raised by the appellant such as fresh issues raised suo motu by the Court of Appeal is of no moment at all. The crucial issue is that the trial court found as a fact and the Court of Appeal affirmed the finding that the land in dispute was part of the land of 20 acres reserved by the Alesinloye family. In the result, I resolve issues 1 and 3 in favour of the respondent.
Issue No.2
This is concerned with the evidence of PW1 which is alleged to be not only at variance with the statement of claim but also contradicted the contents of exhibits “A” “E” and “F”. It is also argued that the evidence of PW1 contradicts the finding of the trial court that the 20 acres of the Alesinloye family is at the northern tip of the whole land.
In his appeal before the Court of Appeal in this matter, the appellant did not complain against the trial Judge’s acceptance or belief of the testimony of PW 1. The issues arising for the determination of the appellant’s appeal before the Court of Appeal were:
“1.Did the respondent discharge the burden of proving with certainty the exact location or situation of the 20 acres of land out of which he claimed to have bought the land in dispute
- Was there any legally admissible evidence in support of the conclusion that exhibit “G” and “H” contains a total of 119.5 acres.
- Did the lower court not contradict itself on the facts and on the evidence, when it held that by exhibit “G” “H” Chief Adewumi had appropriated to himself the whole of the land in dispute in suit No. 1/228/644.
4.Did the respondent establish as required by law his claim to N5,870.00 special damages;
- Whether the appellant was not entitled to judgment or his counter-claim.”
As can be seen from the above, there was no specific complaint against evidence of PW 1 before the lower court. The issue of the contradictory nature of the evidence of PW1 with (1) the pleadings,
(2) the contents of exhibits E and F did not arise in the court below. It is a fresh issue for which no leave of either this court or the court below was sought and obtained. It is not legitimate for the appellant to complain on an issue decided by the trial court without first appealing to the Court of Appeal for determination. It is elementary law that this court has no jurisdiction to consider the issue which was only decided by the trial court. It was the trial court that accepted the evidence of PWI and all the Court of Appeal did was to affirm the decision of the trial court. I decline to discuss the issue 2 since this court has no jurisdiction to entertain an appeal from the decision of the trial court. Issue 2 is struck out.
Issue No.4
In his brief for the appellant the learned counsel states at page 15 that:
“The appeal was heard in the 18th of September, 2000 and adjourned or judgment to be delivered on the 23/11/2000. The purported respondent’s reply in answer to the intervener’s brief was not before the court on the 18/9/2000. On the 19/9/2000, when delivery of judgment was pending, respondent filed a motion asking for extension of time to file brief in answer to the intervener’s brief, the motion was not heard by the court below. The reply brief in answer to the intervener’s brief was however attached to the affidavit in support of the motion which was unheard at all throughout.” It is argued that when judgment was however delivered on the23/11/2000 the lower court made the following statement.
“1. The respondent on the 19/9/2000 filed answer to intervener’s brief of argument. (see page 10).
- I invoke Order 6 rule 9(c), Court of Appeal rules in respect of the answer to the intervener’s brief of argument filed by the respondent in this appeal.”
It is argued that when the appeal was heard on the 18/9/2000, the respondent’s brief in reply to the intervener’s brief was not filed, it was filed only on the 19/9/2000 after the appeal was heard, the respondent filed an application for extension of time to file the brief.
The court, therefore acted erroneously in invoking the provisions of Order 6 rule 9(c) of the Court of Appeal rules, to deem the brief as duly filed. It is submitted further that the appellant did not receive fair hearing because he was not consulted nor was he also allowed to file his own reaction to the fresh issue of privity of contract, therein raised by the respondent. It is submitted that occasioned a miscarriage of justice.
Now, both the appellant herein and Alhaji Raimi Afolabi, the intervener, had their appeals considered separately by the Court of Appeal. The issue raised by the appellant in this issue has no bearing whatsoever with his appeal. The appellant’s appeal was dealt with at first – see page 230 of the printed record, where it was stated:
“For the reasons adumbrated above as all the five issues raised by the appellant in appellant’s brief are unmeritorious the appeal is therefore dismissed.”
It was thereafter that the Court of Appeal began to consider the appeal of the intervener Alhaji Afolabi. The court dealt with only the issue of whether the said intervener was a necessary party to these proceedings. The Court of Appeal having held he was not a necessary party to the proceedings, his appeal was dismissed. I cannot see how and in what manner has the decision to deem the brief filed by the respondent in answer to intervener’s appeal occasioned any miscarriage of justice or how and in what manner were the rights of fair hearing of the appellant’s appeal affected. It is now settled law, that it is not every mistake in a judgment or decision that can warrant the reversal of a decision. To justify a reversal of a decision, the error complained of must be of such a nature to cause real miscarriage of justice. In the instant case, the fact that a breach was considered, even if erroneously, in appeal which does not concern the appellant, cannot be a basis for the appellant to complain. I also resolve this issue against the appellant.
In the result, all the issues hearing been resolved against the appellant. This appeal deserves to fail, and I hereby dismiss it. The respondent is entitled to costs assessed at N 10,000.00.
SC.167/2001
