Musa Iyaji V. Sule Eyigebe (1987)
LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report
OPUTA, J.S.C.
On the 15th February, 1980 the High Court of Benue State ordered a retrial of Suit No. ID/52A/79 (Ex. D16) on the ground that there were “substantial irregularities” in the way the evidence of the P.W.3 (a very material witness) was given.
The Benue State High Court further held that “the irregularities are material and led to a miscarriage of justice. This appeal is therefore allowed and the decision of the trial Court is set aside. We order a retrial before the Area Court Grade II Ajaka”.
The Area Court Grade II Ajaka complied with the above order and on the 25th day of August, 1980 started the retrial of the case between Sule Eyigebe of Ajaka as Plaintiff and Musa lyaji of Otobo as Defendant. This was in Civil Case No. 129/80. The claim before the Court in that Suit (No. 129/80) was:-
“Seeking Court redress to refrain (sic restrain) the deft from his farming and harvesting economic trees at Ajaka”.
The Grade II Area Court heard evidence from the parties and their witnesses received 23 exhibits but refused to consider any and finally visited the land in dispute. At the locus in quo the Court made the following observation:-
“Our observation at the locus in quo, we found that the land in dispute does not favour the deft, but we observed that the land in dispute is within the land of the plaintiff, Ajaka-ate and within Ikare Anama”.
In summarizing the case of the parties the trial Grade II Area Court Ajaka at p.32 of the record of proceedings noted:-
“Plaintiff further told the Court that he wishes to tender 10 copies of judgments which he and the deft had litigated upon in the Area Court Grade I Idah, Area Court grade II Ajaka, Upper Area Court Lokoja, and Ayangha and also the High Court of Justice Kwara State and Benue State respectively …………………
Plaintiff in reply to the cross-examination by the deft said he never won the deft in the 10 copies of documents he tendered.
At p.33 of the record lines 4 to 11 the plaintiff in further answer in cross-examination admitted that:-
” …. he knew that his late brother Sani Eyigebe and the late brother of the deft Adachaba Akubo had a dispute over a land called Ikare Anama and the present case Ajaka-ate which is now in dispute. Plaintiff also replied that he was not at home when his late brother and the deft’s late brother started their case and he did not know who won the case”.
Now the cases between “the late brother of the Plaintiff’ and “the late brother of the Defendant” was tendered as EXS. D1, D2, D3 and D4, I shall later on in this judgment consider the impact of these proceedings on the rights of the parties to this present dispute. Suffice it now to say that the Area Court Grade II Ajaka ultimately “entered judgment in favour of the plaintiff Sule Eyigebe” and awarded ownership of “the disputed land Ajaka-Ate to the Plaintiff, Sule Eyigehe”.
Dissatisfied and aggrieved by the above decision the Defendant, Musa Iyaji of Otobo appealed to the High Court of Justice, Idah in Appeal No. ID/108A/80. The appeal proceedings in the Idah High Court are copied on pages 55 to 57 of the record of proceedings and repeated at pages 77 to 79.
Leave a Reply