Aidoko Onuche V. Sule Anyegwu & Anor (2000)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

ZAINAB ADAMU BULKACHUWA, J.C.A. 

T

his case was first initiated before the civil Upper Area Court Idah by the appellant where he was “seeking court assistance to restrain the defendant from further collection of my stool land tributes called Ogbajele”. At the end of the case, the majority decision found for the respondent. On consideration of the record of the case, the inspector of Area Courts referred the case to the High Court for review. After the review by the High Court sitting on its appellate jurisdiction, a re-trial de novo was ordered before a differently constituted Upper Area Court.

Before the newly constituted Upper Area Court Idah, the claim of the appellant was still “seeking court assistance to restrain the defendant from further collection of my stool land tributes called Ogbajele”.

The court heard witnesses and visited the locus in quo and at the end of the trial there was a split decision with the majority entering judgment for the appellant. The respondent appealed to the High Court, Kogi State sitting in its appellate jurisdiction at Idah. The High Court overturned the decision of the trial court and gave judgment to the respondent.

The appellant, being dissatisfied with the said judgment, has now appealed to this court on three grounds of appeal. These shorn of their particulars are produced below:

1. The learned Judges of the High Court Idah, erred in law in finding that the trial upper area court’s failure to accord probative value to Exhibit 1 has occasioned miscarriage of justice when the deprivation of Exhibit 1 of probative value was based upon inter alia, what the trial upper area court’s eyes saw during the visit to the locus in quo as well as what that court heard during the trial.

2. The learned Judges of the High Court erred in law when they held that it found no explanation from appellant as to how the latter came to control Ogbajele land the grant to appellant of which appellant again failed to prove.

3. The learned Judge of the High Court Idah erred in law in declaring ownership in respondent despite the existence of Exhibit 1 with its shortcomings and further in the light of Igala Native Law and custom (not shown to be repugnant to natural justice, equity and good conscience) and the Land Use Act 1978 which both only recognise right of occupancy which appellant had, he having been in possession of the land for a long time, and when the issue in dispute really is about right of occupancy.

As is the practice in this court, parties filed and exchanged their briefs each having obtained the leave of this court for extension of time within which to file their respective briefs.

The appellant in his brief of argument identified 3 issues for determination to wit:

1. Whether the High Court was right to hold that the failure to ascribe ‘desired’ probative value to Exhibit 1, in light of or inspite of the evidence before the trial court including the visit to the locus in quo has occasioned a miscarriage of justice?.

2. Whether the High Court was right in its findings/conclusions that, appellant proffered ‘no explanation’ as to how he came to control Ogbajele land as well as how he came about the grant to him of Ogbajele land?.

3. Whether the High Court was right in determining ownership of Ogbajele in respondents in light of defects in Exhibit 1 as well as enunciations of statute law and Igala Native Law and Custom when the real issue in dispute is about right of occupancy.