By Legalpedia

GABRIEL OLATAYO ODUKOYA V. OBA MORUFU OJOOLA & ANOR

CA/L/1030/2016

Areas Of Law: APPEAL, COURT, ESTOPPEL, JUDGMENT AND ORDER, JURISDICTION, LAND LAW, LAW OF EVIDENCE, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE, WORDS AND PHRASES

Summary Of Facts:

The land in dispute is situated at Igbo Ilogbo Ishefun via Ayobo in Alimosho Local Government Area of Lagos State. The Appellant alleged that he purchased it from Olalore Family of Ishefun village Igbo Ilogbo Ayobo in 1976 and the purchase was documented in a receipt, deed of conveyance and deed of rectification.

The receipt and conveyance were registered at the Land Registry Ikeja, Lagos. After the purchase, the Appellant exercised various acts of possession and ownership over the disputed land. In 1994 and 2004, the Respondents unlawfully entered into the disputed land and started exercising acts of possession and ownership thereon and used the instrumentally of the police force to dispossess him of the property.

The Appellant asserted that the unlawful acts/conduct of the Respondents deprived him of income, properties and subjected him to untold hardships: physically, mentally and financially. Hence, the Appellant instituted an action before the High Court of Lagos, Lagos Division via an amended writ of summons wherein he sought against the Respondents, jointly and severally, declarative reliefs; damages; and injunctive relief. The Respondents counter-claimed seeking a declaration that they are entitled to the right of occupancy over the disputed land and an injunctive relief.

The trial Court dismissed the Appellant’s claims and granted the counter-claims of the Respondents.

Dissatisfied with the judgment, the Appellant appealed against same via his Notice of Appeal, wherein he sought for an order setting aside the judgment of the trial court and allowing the appeal.

HELD:

Appeal Dismissed

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION

Whether the Claimant/Appellant has been able to prove by his pleadings and evidence, any of the FIVE (5) ways of establishing title to land as enunciated in the case of IDUNDUN v. OKUMAGBA (1976) 9 – 10 SC 221 AT 246 – 250. What is the effect of a trial court making two conflicting findings on the same set of documentary evidence and witnesses in two cases over the same parcel of land. Whether the Respondents successfully proved their case as to entitle them to the reliefs sought in their counter-claim. Whether the trial Court properly evaluated the evidence before the Court and arrived at the appropriate conclusion. Whether the trial Court, properly evaluated evidence before the Court and arrived at a right conclusion. Whether the Appellant successfully proved issue estopped by the judgments tendered before the trial Court. RATIONES

ISSUE OF JURISDICTION – RATIONALE FOR THE PRIME CONSIDERATION OF JURISDICTIONAL ISSUE

The law compels the courts to accord premier attention to issue of jurisdiction, which is numerouno in adjudication, when raised in any proceedings, see Okwu v. Umeh (2016) NWLR (Pt. 1501) 120; Brittania-U (Nig.) Ltd. v. Seplat Pet. Co. Dev. Ltd. (2016) 4 NWLR (Pt.1503) 541; Oni v. Cadbury Nig. Plc. (2016) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1516) 80; Diamond BankLtd. v. Ugochukwu (2016) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1517) 193; PDP v. Umeh (2017) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1579); APC v. Ndual (2018) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1602) 1; Adama v. Maigari (2019) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1658) 26; APC v. Lere (2020) 1 NWLR (Pt. 1705) 254.

The reason the law, in its wisdom, insists on prime consideration of jurisdictional issue is obvious. Where a court is drained of the jurisdiction to entertain a matter, the proceeding germinating from it, no matter the quantum of diligence, dexterity, artistry, sophistry, transparency and objectivity injected into it, will be trapped in the intractable web of nullity, see Elugbe v. Omokhafe (2004) 18 NWLR (Pt. 905) 319; Lokpobiri v. Ogola (2016) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1499) 328; Garba v. Mohammed (2016) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1537) 144; Isah v. INEC (2016)18 NWLR (Pt. 1544) 175″. –PER O. F. OGBUINYA, J.C.A

ISSUE ESTOPPEL –DOCTRINE AND APPLICATION OF ISSUE ESTOPPEL

“Generally, the doctrine of issue estoppel postulates that within a cause of action, several issues may come into question which are necessary for the determination of the whole case. The rule is that once one or two of such issues have been distinctly raised in a cause of action and appropriately determined or resolved between the same parties by a court of competent jurisdiction, neither party nor his servant, agent or privy is allowed to re-open or relitigate that or those decided issues all over again in another matter between the same parties or their agents or privies on the same issues.

For issue estoppel to apply, the parties, the issues, the subject matter (res) in the previous proceeding and the current action must be the same and the issue must have been resolved in the previous case, see Ladega v. Durosimi (supra); Ikeni v. Efamo (supra); Salami v. Sokefun (2004) All FWLR (Pt. 207) 672; Omnia (Nig.) Ltd. v. Dyktrade (2007) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1058) 576; Ajiboye v. Ishola (2006) 13 NWLR (Pt. 998) 638; Ikotun v. Oyekanmi (2008) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1094) 100; Oloruntoba-Oju v. Abdul-Raheem (2009) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1157) 83; Oshoboja v. Amida (2009) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1172) 188; Gbemisola v. Bolarinwa (2014) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1411) 1; APC v. PDP (2015) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1481) 1; Esuwoye v. Bosere (2017) 1 NWLR (Pt. 1546) 256. –PER O. F. OGBUINYA, J.C.A ESTOPPEL, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

ISSUE ESTOPPEL – CONDITION FOR THE APPLICATION OF ISSUE ESTOPPEL

“One of the conditions for the application of issue estoppel, catalogued above, is sameness of parties in the previous and current actions. It is foremost to appreciate the connotation of a party in litigation. A party is a person by or against whom a legal action is sought and whose name is designated on the record as plaintiff or defendant, see Green v. Green (2001) FWLR (Pt. 76) 795; Fawehinmi v. NBA (No. 1) (1989) 2 NWLR (Pt. 105) 494; BelIo v. INEC (2010) 8 NWLR (Pt.1196) 342; Odedo v. Oguebego (2015) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1476) 229.

In law, parties encompass privies which are classified into three: (1) Privies in blood (as ancestor and heir) (2) Privies in law (as testator and executor; intestate and administrator) and (3) Privies in estate (as vendor and purchaser, lessor and lessee), see Coker v. Sanyaolu (1976) 9-10 SC 203; Oyerogba v. Olaopa (1998) 12 SCNJ 115. In the mind of the law, parties to an action embrace privies in estate, see Coker v. Sanyaolu (1976) 10 NSCC 566; Omoloye v. A. -G., Oyo State (1987) 4 NWLR (Pt. 64) 267; Balogun v. Adejobi (1995) 1 SCNJ 242; Adone v. Ikebudu(2001) 7 SCNJ 513; Oyerogba v. Olaopa (1998) 11 & 12 SCNJ 115. Abubakar v. B. O. & A. P. Ltd. (2007) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1066) 319; L.S. B. P. C. v. Purification Tech. (Nig.) Ltd. (2013) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1352) 82’. –PER O. F. OGBUINYA, J.C.A

DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT – STATUS OF THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT

“Indisputably, the Supreme Court is the apex court in the judicial ladder/pyramid in this country. Its decision, except it sets it aside in deserving circumstances, enjoys finality in all ramifications. On this score, the finality of the decision in exhibit F is doubtless. It is an unappealable decision to any other court in this country”. PER O. F. OGBUINYA, J.C.A

JUDGMENT AND ORDER, WORDS AND PHRASES

“JUDGMENT IS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE” – IMPLICATION OF THE PHRASE “JUDGMENT IS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE”

“A castigation of a decision on the premise that a judgment is against the weight of evidence, invariably couched as an omnibus ground, connotes that the decision of the trial court cannot be supported by the weight of evidence advanced by the successful party which the court either wrongly accepted or that the inference it drew or conclusion it reached, based on the accepted evidence, is unjustifiable in law.

Also, it implies that there is no evidence, which if accepted, will buttress the finding of the trial court. Furthermore, it denotes that when the evidence adduced by the complaining appellant is weighed against that given by the respondent, the judgment rendered to the respondent is against the totality of the evidence placed before the trial court.

In ascertaining the weight of evidence, the trial court is enjoined, by law, to consider whether the evidence is admissible, relevant, credible, conclusive or more probable than that given by the other party, see Mogaji v. Odofin (1978) 3 SC91; Anyaoke v. Adi (1986) 2 NSCC, Vol. 17, 799 at 806/(1986) 3 NWLR (Pt. 31) 731; Nwokidu v. Okanu (supra) (2010) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1181) 362; Akinlagun v. Oshoboja (2006) 12 NWLR (Pt. 993) 60; Gov., Lagos State v. Adyiga (2012) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1293) 291; Oyewole v. Akande (2009)15 NWLR (Pt. 1163) 11; Agala v. Okusin (2010) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1202) 412. –PER O. F. OGBUINYA, J.C.A

COURT – THE PRIMARY DUTY OF A TRIAL COURT

“The law has saddled a trial court, like the lower court herein, with the primary duty to evaluate relevant and material evidence, both oral and documentary, after hearing and watching the demeanour of witnesses called by the parties in any proceedings having regard to their pleadings.

To discharge that bounden duty, a trial court must show how and why it arrived at its findings of fact and final determination of the issues before it. It has to be cautious and understand the distinction between summary or restatement of evidence and evaluation of evidence which means assessment of evidence and giving them probative value. It appraises evidence by constructing an imaginary scale of justice and putting the evidence of the parties on the two different pans of the scale.

Then, it weighs them to determine which is heavier, not in terms of quantity, but quality of the testimonies, see Mogaji v. Odofin(1978) 3 SC 91; Olagunju v. Adesoye(2009) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1146) 225;Oyewole v. Akande(2009) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1163) 11;Ayuya v. Yonrin(2011) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1254) 135;Adusei v. Adebayo(2012) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1288) 534;Odutola v. Mabogunje(2013) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1356) 522;Ndulue v. Ojiakor(2013) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1356) 311; Okoro v. Okoro (2018) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1646) 506; D.M.V (Nig) Ltd. v. NPA (2019) 1 NWLR (Pt. 1652) 1635; Oguntade v. Oyelakin (2020) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1719) 41″. –PER O. F. OGBUINYA, J.C.A

EVALUATION OF DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE – CONCURRENT JURISDICTION OF THE TRIAL COURT AND THE COURT OF APPEAL IN THE EVALUATION OF DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE

“Interestingly, the case-law gives the courts the nod to evaluate documentary evidence, see Fagunwa v. Adibi (2004) 17 NWLR (Pt. 903) 544. Admirably, the law, in order to foreclose any injustice, donates concurrent jurisdiction to this court and the lower court in evaluation of documentary evidence, see Gonzee (Nig.) Ltd. v. NERDC (2005) 13 NWLR (Pt. 943) 634; Olagungu v. Adesoye (2009) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1146) 225; Ayuya v. Yorin (2011) 10 NWLR (Pt.1254) 135; Eyibio v. Abia (2012) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1325) 51; Odutola v. Mabogunje (2013) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1354); CPC v. Ombugadu (2013) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1385) 66; UTC (Nig) Plc. v. Lawal (2014) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1400) 221; Ogundalu v. Macjob (2015) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1460) 96; Onwuzuraike v. Edoziem (2016) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1508) 215; Ezechukwu v. Onwuka (2016) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1506) 529, C.K. & W.M.C. Ltd. v. Akingbade (2016) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1533) 487; Emeka v. Okafor (2017) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1577); 410; Okoro v. Okoro (2018) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1646) 506; D.M.V (Nig) Ltd. v. NPA (2019) 1 NWLR (Pt. 1652); Olomoda v. Mustapha (2019) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1667) 36. –PER O. F. OGBUINYA, J.C.A

PROOF OF TITLE TO LAND – WHETHER THE PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS OF TITLE AUTOMATICALLY ENTITLES A PARTY TO OWNERSHIP OF LAND

“Indisputably, production of duly authenticated document is one of the five recognised ways of proving title to land within the corpus of the Nigerian legal system. The apex court had sanctioned these modes in loads of judicial authorities, see Idundun v. Okumagba (1976) 9-10 SC 227; Ewo v. Ani (supra); Balogun v. Akanji (2005) 10 NWLR (Pt. 933) 393; Yusuf v. Adegoke (2007) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1045) 332; Odunukwe v. Ofomata (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1225) 404; Momoh v. Umoru (2011) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1270) 217; Dakolo v. Rewane-Dakolo (2011) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1272) 22; Iseogbekun v. Adelakun (2013) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1337) 140; Arum v. Nwobodo (2013) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1362) 374;Salisu v. Mobolaji (2016) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1535) 242; Pada v. Galadima (2018) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1607) 436; Oyewusi v. Olagbami (2018) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1639) 297; Anagbado v. Faruk (2019) 1 NWLR (Pt. 1653) 292; Ifediora v. Okafor (2019) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1698) 322; Gaba v. Tsoida (2020) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1716)1.

It cannot be gainsaid, that a document of title does not automatically entitle a party, armed with it, to ownership of land. A party’s production and reliance on such an instrument, inevitably, carries with it the necessity for the court to inquire into some number of questions, videlicet: (i) whether the document is genuine and valid; (ii) whether it has been duly executed, stamped and registered; (iii) whether the grantor had the authority and capacity to make the grant; (iv) whether the grantor had in fact what he purported to grant; and (v) whether it has the effect claimed by its holder, see Agboola v. UBA (supra); Romaine v. Romaine (1992) 4 NWLR (Pt. 238); Dabo v. Abdullahi (2005) 7 NWLR (2005) 7 NWLR (Pt. 923) 181; Kyari v. Alkali (2001) 11 NWLR (Pt. 724) 412; Jolasun v. Bamgboye (supra); Ayanwale v. Odusami (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1278) 328; Olaniyan v. Fatoki (2013) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1384) 477. –PER O. F. OGBUINYA, J.C.A

NEMO DAT QUOD NON HABET – IMPLICATION OF THE LATIN MAXIM NEMO DAT QUOD NON HABET

“It is decipherable from those exhibits that the disputed land falls within the perimeter of the respondents’ large expanse of land. In fact, they, amply, disclose that the disputed land is an infinitesimal portion of land that is enveloped by the respondents’ large tract of land. The effervescence of exhibits Z3, S4 and Z1 neutralise the efficacy of exhibits A, B and C. They deflate the radical title of Olalore family – the appellant’s vendor and predecessor-in-title. The net effect is plain.

The Olalore family was drained of any authority and capacity to make the grant of the disputed land to the appellant. It was not seised of the land that it purported to alienable to the appellant. Since those exhibits stripped the Ilogbo people of title over the land in dispute, they were destitute of any rights to bestow on the appellants.

This finds anchorage in the Latin maxim – Nemo dat quod non habet: no one gives out what he does not have. The case-law has given its blessings to this ancient legal maxim in sea of authorities, see Ashiru v. Oluboya (2006) 11 NWLR (Pt. 990) 1, Dardi v. Garba (1995) 9 SCNJ 232; Ilona v. Idakwo (2003) 11 NWLR (Pt. 830) 53; Dantsoho v. Mohammed (2003) FWLR (Pt. 150) 1717; Omiyale v. Macaulay (2009) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1141) 597; Nsiegbe v. Mgbemena (2007) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1042) 364 ; Oronto v. Onigbanjo (2012) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1313) 23, Gbadamosi v. Akinoye (2013) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1378) 455; Abba v. SPDCN Ltd. (2013) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1364) 861; Chiadi v. Aggo (2018) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1603) 175. –PER O. F. OGBUINYA, J.C.A

PROOF OF TITLE TO LAND – WHETHER ACTS OF LONG POSSESSION CAN RIPEN TO OWNERSHIP WHERE TITLE TO LAND IS DEFECTIVE

“The appellant pegged his title on acts of long possession of the disputed land. In point of fact, he made heavy weather of his protracted possession of it. Having confirmed, after due consultation with the law, that the appellant’s documentary root of failed, his long possession of the disputed land is impotent to vest him with title over it because “when a root ceases to stand, the stem and branches will fall with the root.

In other words, where the radical title pleaded by a party is not proved, it is not permissible to support a non-existed root with acts of possession”. See Odofin v. Ayoola (1984) 11 SC 72 at 116/(1984) NSCE vol. 15711 at 741; Ameem v. Amao (2013) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1358) 159; Ukaegbu v. Nwololo (2009) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1127) 194. In the eye of the law, proof of ownership is tantamount to proof of possession, seeAyanwale v. Odusami (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1278) 328; Olaniyan v. Fatoki (supra).

In fact, the law views the appellants’ possession of the disputed property as adverse in the face of an award of title to the respondent, see Wachukwu v. Owunwanne (2011) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1266) 1. In the mind of the law, even in the presence of copious evidence of possession, the length of possession does not ripen invalid title to a valid ownership title, see Yusuf v. Adegoke (2007) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1045) 332 at 369; per Aderemi, JSC; Olubodun v. Lawal (2008) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1115) 1 at 37; Dagaci of Dere v. Dagaci of Ebwa (2006) 1 SCNJ 160; Okwarononi v. Mbadugha (2013) 6 SCNJ (Pt. 11) 346.

This legal exposition, with respect, exposes the poverty and emptiness of the learned appellant’s scintillating argument which ascribes long possession to the appellant. The inviting argument flies in the face of the law in the sense that it, the long possession, has no substratum to perch and command any validity. It is a notorious principle of law that no one puts something on nothing and expects it to stand, see UAC v. Macfoy Co. Ltd. (1962) AC 152; CCB Plc. v. Ekperi (2007) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1022) 493; Alsthom v. Saraki (2005) 3 NWLR (Pt. 911) 208; Aderibigbe v. Abidoye (2009) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1150) 592. In the Latin days of the law, it was encapsulated in the maxim: Lex non cogit ad impossibila – the law does not command the impossible, see Lasun v. Awoyemi (2009) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1168) 513.

In the aggregate, the long possession of the disputed land, which the appellants have erected as a defence to the counter-claim, is disabled from birth. It cannot fly! –PER O. F. OGBUINYA, J.C.A

DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE – DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE VIZ-A-VIZ ORAL EVIDENCE

“A documentary evidence is indelible, permanent, incorruptible in contradistinction to viva voce evidence which ooze out from the vocal cord of man and liable to distortions by its author. It is a hanger that solidifies parol evidence”. PER O. F. OGBUINYA, J.C.A

EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE –MONOPOLY OF A TRIAL COURT IN THE EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE

“To begin with, evaluation of evidence connotes the appraisal/assessment of evidence, both viva voce and documentary before a court, and ascription of probative value to them which results in finding of fact.

This primary evidentiary duty falls, squarely, within the exclusive preserve of a trial court. It enjoys this prerogative in that it has the singular advantage, which cannot be recaptured by an appellate court, to watch the witnesses, form impression on their demeanour and assess the credibility or otherwise of their evidence, see Ezeani v. FRN (2019) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1686) 221. An appellate court is derobed of the vires to interfere with a finding of a trial court anchored on demeanour and credibility of witnesses, see Adebanjo v. State (2019) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1688) 121; Tope v. State (2019) 15 NWLR (Pt.1695) 289.

It stems from this inflexible of the law that this court is not equipped with the jurisdiction to tinker with the above finding of the lower court which is staked in law on demeanour of witnesses. The lower court, a trial court, has a monopoly of that duty. It will constitute a serious fracture of the adjectival law to intervene in the solemn finding”. –PER O. F. OGBUINYA, J.C.A

EVIDENCE– WHEN IS A PIECE OF EVIDENCE CREDIBLE AND CONCLUSIVE?

“A piece of evidence is credible when it is worthy of belief, see Agbi v. Ogbeh (2006) 11 NWLR (Pt. 990) 1; Dim v. Enemuo (2009) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1149) 353; Eta v. Dazie (2013) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1359) 248; A. J.Inv. Ltd. v. Afribank (Nig.) Plc. (2013) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1359) 380; Emeka v. Chuba-Ikeazu(2017) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1589) 345. In the same vein, a piece of evidence is conclusive if it leads to a definite result, see Nruamah v. Ebuzoeme(2013) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1372) 474″. –PER O. F. OGBUINYA, J.C.A

“PROOF”– MEANING OF “PROOF”

“Proof, in law, is a process by which the existence of facts is established to the satisfaction of the court, see section 121 of the Evidence Act, 2011; Olufosoye v. Fakorede (1993) 1 NWLR (Pt. 272) 747; Awuse v. Odili(2005) 16 NWLR (Pt. 952) 416; Salau v. State (2019) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1699) 399.(Pt. 1372) 474; APC v. Karfi(2018) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1616) 479; Ojobo v Moro (2019) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1700) 166. –PER O. F. OGBUINYA, J.C.A ESTOPPEL

ISSUE ESTOPPEL –WHEN DOES ISSUE ESTOPPEL ARISE?

“If I may just say a word or two on issue estoppel; according to Sewell and Kettle, issue estoppel is an estoppel of record that arises where a particular issue that was judicially determined in previous litigation between the parties has been raised again under a different cause of action, Issue estoppel dictates that the legal issues which overlap will be treated as having been decided already. Giving this definition, issue estoppel does not arise as the land issue determined in the previous litigation(Exhibit F) does not overlap with one litigated in the matter now on appeal”. PER O.O.DANIEL-KALIO, J.C.A

Statutes Referred To:

Evidence Act, 2011