Home » Nigerian Cases » Supreme Court » Sidiku Kasaduku Vs Akanbi Atolagbe (1973) LLJR-SC

Sidiku Kasaduku Vs Akanbi Atolagbe (1973) LLJR-SC

Sidiku Kasaduku Vs Akanbi Atolagbe (1973)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

G.B.A. COKER, JSC. 

The case is concerned with an alleged trespass by the defendant into the land of the plaintiff. The trial court had held that the defendant was in trespass but the High Court on appeal held that the judgment was not based on a proper consideration, let alone, appraisal of the evidence before the court.

The plaintiff’s case assumed that his ancestor as the owner of the radical title, had granted the land in dispute to one Sarkin Dongari whose duty it was to look after the captives who were settled on the land.

Thus the plaintiff in order to succeed must give satisfactory explanation of the actual possession of the defendant and his progenitors. PAGE| 2 In fact, there was no such satisfactory explanation and the court of trial, i.e., the Upper Area Court of Ilorin, nowhere expressed a considered view on the evidence actually given in the case.

On the other hand, the High Court analysed the entire evidence as it was entitled to do, and came to the conclusion, rightly, in our view, that the story of the defendant that he and his forebears have always owned the land, was a more probable one than that of the plaintiff.

Before us, the argument canvassed was that the judgment of the High Court on appeal was against the weight of evidence and authorities were cited to show that a Court of Appeal should not without justification interfere with findings of fact made by a trial court.

See also  Moses Okhuarobo V. Chief Egharevba Aigbe (2002) LLJR-SC

We are in agreement with this proposition of law but we are satisfied that the Upper Area Court failed to take advantage of the opportunity it had of seeing and hearing the witnesses and of ascribing probative value to the evidence they gave. Many of the witnesses called by the plaintiff actually gave evidence which contradicted the plaintiff’s case.

We conclude that the ground of appeal argued on behalf of the plaintiff must fail and we dismiss the appeal. The appellant must pay to the respondent the cost of the appeal fixed at N70.


Other Citation: (1973) LCN/1711(SC)

More Posts

Section 47 EFCC Act 2004: Short Title

Section 47 EFCC Act 2004 Section 47 of the EFCC Act 2004 is about Short Title. This Act may be cited as the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (Establishment,

Section 46 EFCC Act 2004: Interpretation

Section 46 EFCC Act 2004 Section 46 of the EFCC Act 2004 is about Interpretation. In this Act – Interpretation “Commission” means the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission established

Section 45 EFCC Act 2004: Savings

Section 45 EFCC Act 2004 Section 45 of the EFCC Act 2004 is about Savings. The repeal of the Act specified in section 43 of this Act shall not

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

LawGlobal Hub is your innovative global resource of law and more. We ensure easy accessibility to the laws of countries around the world, among others