J. Elabanjo V. Alhaja A. O. Tijani (1986)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

OPUTA, J.S.C.

This is an appeal against the judgment of the Court of Appeal Lagos Division. In a lead judgment delivered by Uthman Mohammed, J.C.A. to which Nnaemeka-Agu and Kutigi, J.J.C.A. concurred, the Court of Appeal set aside the judgment of Oshodi, J. of the Lagos High Court awarding the Plaintiff (now Appellant) N100.00 damages for trespass and an injunction “restraining the defendant, her servants/agents from further acts of trespass on the land in dispute.”

In the Court of first instance, the Plaintiff gave evidence and tendered the Purchase Receipt of the land in dispute as EX.B and the Conveyance to him of the land in dispute duly executed by the Defendant/Respondent to this appeal. The plan of the land in dispute was attached to EX.A. The Plaintiff

also tendered EX.C written for and on behalf of the Defendant by her Solicitors. Coker & Coker. Exhibit C was a Public Notice posted by the Defendant on the land in dispute. Exhibit C contained the following relevant and material particulars:

“2. Our client has complained of recent acts of trespass on parts or portions of her lands and she hereby states for the information of all and sundry that apart from only 10 (ten acres of such lands sold by her to one D.T. Elabanjo (conveyance dated 5th day of November, 1969 and registered as No. 19 at p. 19 in Volume 1305 of the Register of Deeds kept in Lagos) she has not sold any portion of her land to anyone else.”

It is pertinent here to note that the particulars of the Deed of Conveyance pleaded by the Plaintiff in paragraph 1 of his Statement of Claim and tendered in evidence as EX.A agree in all respects with the Defendant’s description in paragraph 2 of EX.C of the land she sold to the Plaintiff. Exhibit C is an admission by the Defendant/Respondent that she sold the land in dispute to the Appellant.

In a short but well written and very carefully considered judgment, the learned trial judge. Oshodi, J. reviewed the pleadings, the evidence led on either side and exercised the prerogative of a judge who saw the witnesses, heard their evidence and watched their demeanour – the prerogative to believe one side and disbelieve the other. He held:-

“There is evidence before me that the contents of EX.B (the Purchase Receipt) were read over and interpreted to the defendant by Popoola in the presence of the Plaintiffs Solicitor even though Mr. Popoola signed as a witness and not as an interpreter. I believe and accept the evidence of Mr. Otukoya and Mr. Popoola on this point. With regard to Exhihit “A” itself I am satisfied that the defendant’s evidence as to its execution is false. It is an after-thought. I do not believe the defendant that the document was executed in the house of Mr. Shomefun her former husband. The execution was before a Magistrate in the Court. The 10 acres were validly sold to the Plaintiff. The plaintiff went into possession and 10 years later the defendant disturbed his possession by going on the land and damaging the pillars and palm trees on it.

(italics mine).

Needless to say that on the above findings, the learned trial judge was fully justified in awarding the Plaintiff damages for trespass and in “restraining the defendant, her servants/agents from further acts of trespass on the land in dispute.”

The Defendant appealed against the above decision of the High Court to the Court of Appeal. In a 19-paged judgment, 18 of which were devoted to a discussion of “the role played by a lawyer, Mr. Kunle Otukoya”. Uthman Mohammed, J.C.A. allowed the appeal of the Defendant, set aside the judgment of Oshodi. J. and “dismissed the claim of the Respondent before the High Court.” The Plaintiff who was Respondent in the Court of Appeal, as I observed earlier on, has now appealed to the Supreme Court on 7 grounds. J will now deal with Ground 7 which is the omnibus ground:-

“That the decision is against the weight of evidence.”

I must add at this point that the Appellant applied to the Court below for leave to argue grounds involving facts or mixed law and fact as provided by Section 213(3) of the 1979 Constitution and under Order 3 Rule 3(2) of the Federal Court of Appeal Rules, his application for leave was on the 29th day of April 1985 refused by the Court below. (See p. 155 of the Record of proceedings).

However on the 29th day of May 1985 this Court granted the Appellant “leave to appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeal dated 25th February, 1985 both on questions of fact and of Mixed Law and Fact” (see p. 156 of the Record of proceedings). If the facts of this case, as set out in the evidence of the witnesses were dispassionately considered without beclouding them with the issue of the desirability or undesirability of counsel giving evidence in a case in which he was briefed as counsel, it would have been quite clear that on the findings of fact of the trial Court, there was not much an appellate court could do.