Samson Awoyale V. Joshua O. Ogunbiyi (1986)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

KAWU, J.S.C

The respondent in this appeal was the plaintiff in an action which he insituted on behalf of the Ba’a family in the Igbomina South Central Area Court, Oro, Kwara State. The defendant in that case was David Adewoye who later died but was substituted by Samson Awoyale, who is the appellant in this appeal and who represents the Efundere family. Both parties are from Ijomu-Oro in Oro District of Kwara State.

The plaintiff’s claim was for a declaration of title to the Ijomu-Oro township land and its adjoining forest. Both parties gave evidence and called a number of witnesses in support of their respective claims. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial Area Court dismissed the plaintiff’s claim.

On appeal to the Upper Area Court, that court allowed the appeal and awarded the land to the Ba’a family. On further appeal to the High Court by the Efundere family, the High Court allowed the appeal, reversed the decision of the Upper Area Court and restored the decision of the trial Area Court which awarded the land to the Efundere family.

On appeal to the Court of Appeal from the judgment of the High Court, that Court, in a well considered allowed the appeal of the Ba’a family and restored the judgment of the Upper Area Court in favour of that family. The lead judgment of the Court of Appeal (concurred in by Wali, J.C.A. and Karibi-Whyte, J.C.A. (as he then was, which was delivered by Coker, J.C.A. (as he then was), after highlighting some misdirection in the judgment of the High Court, concluded as follows:

“The plaintiff, in my opinion is entitled to succeed on the pre preponderence of evidence on both traditional evidence and clear cogent acts of possession and ownership. Further, it is my view that the judges of the High Court proceeded on wrong principle of law as regards burden of proof and on its evaluation of the primary facts and finally came to a wrong decision. The traditional evidence adduced by the plaintiff was sufficient, apart from the cogent evidence of acts of ownership, to prove its title. See Stool of Abinabina etc. v. Eyinamadu 12 W.A.C.A. 17, p. 174; Olujebu of Ijebu & Ors. etc. (1972) 5 SC. 145 p. 151. See also Kojo II v. Bonsie & Anor. (1957) 1 W.L.R. 1223 p. 1226, 14 W.A.C.A. 242. Still further, the High Court was in error to set aside the judgment of the Upper Area Court which was reasonable and amply supported by evidence. See Ogbero Egri v. Ededho Uperi (1973) 11 SC. 299 p. 309-310; A.M. Akinlaye v. Bello Eyiola (1968) N.M.L.R. 92, p. 93.”

The defendant/appellant aggrieved by the decision of the Court of Appeal has further appealed to this Court on the following four grounds:

“(1) The trial before the Igbomina South Central Area Court was irregular and void because the trial Court took upon itself to summon to (sic) witnesses without the consent of the parties.

(2) Further and in the alternative the Federal Court of Appeal erred in law and on the facts in allowing the appeal and (without directing a retrial) entering judgment in favour of the Ba’s Family.

PARTICULARS OF ERROR

The nature and character of the evidence before the Area Court at Oro was such that it was not possible for the Upper Area Court or for the Federal Court of Appeal to assess the credibility of the witnesses and adjudicate on the issues of fact raised on the evidence adduced.

(3) The Federal Court of Appeal erred in failing to observe that it is not enough for them to be satisfied that they would not have come to the conclusions of fact to which the Area Court and the High Court came; the Federal Court of Appeal ought to be satisfied in addition that no reasonable tribunal could have come to the conclusions of fact aforesaid.

(4) The decision of the Federal Court of Appeal is against the weight of evidence. “In his brief of argument, Chief Williams, SAN, learned counsel for the appellant formulated three questions for determination in this appeal as follows:

(1) In what circumstances should an appellate court reverse a finding of fact by the Court of trial