Adeyemi Ogunleye V. Matthew Ige Safejo (2009)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

JUMMAI HANNATU SANKEY, J.C.A.,

Matthew Ige Safejo, (the Respondent herein), as Plaintiff before the lower Court, claimed against Adeyemi Ogunleye, (the Appellant herein), the sum of One Million Naira (N1,000,000.00) being general damages for trespass allegedly committed and still being committed by the Defendant on the Plaintiff’s land at Omi-Eliju, Ikere Road, Ilawe-Ekiti on which the Plaintiff had built the foundation of a house, and for perpetual injunction restraining the Defendant, his agents, servants and privies from going into theland in dispute or doing anything whatsoever on it. After pleadings were duly exchanged, parties adduced evidence in proof and in defence of the claims. At the close of trial, Judgment was given in favour of the Plaintiff/Respondent in these terms:

“In the light of the foregoing, it is my view and I so hold that the plaintiff has discharged the onus of proof placed on him in this case. Consequently, judgment is hereby entered in favour of the plaintiff; Mathew Ige Safejo as follows;

i. It is the order of this court that the defendant Adeyemi Ogunleye shall pay to the plaintiff the sum of N100,000.00 as general damages for trespass committed by the Defendant on the plaintiff’s plot of land which is situated at Omi-Eliju, Ikere road, Ilawe-Ekiti.

ii. A perpetual injunction is hereby granted restraining the defendant, his agents, servants and privies from going to the land in dispute or doing anything whatsoever on it

iii. Each side shall bear its respective costs of the suit”

The Appellant manifested his dissatisfaction with this decision in an Appeal. He filed one original Ground of Appeal and four additional Grounds of Appeal.

On the 9th February, 2009, when the Appeal was called up for hearing, Miss Mbah, learned Counsel for the Appellant, adopted the Appellant’s Brief of argument dated 25th September, 2008 but filed on 6th October, 2000 and prayed the Court to allow the Appeal. Similarly, Mr. Omotoso, learned counsel for the Respondent, adopted the Respondent’s Brief of argument filed on 7th November, 2008 and prayed the Court to dismiss the Appeal.

Arising from the Grounds of Appeal, the Appellant distilled four issues to be determined by the Court as follows:

1. Whether or not Exhibit A is admissible in evidence as an instrument granting title to the land in dispute to the respondent
2. Whether or not the lower court was right not to have expunged Exhibit A when writing Judgment for offending the illiterate Protection Law.
3. Whether or not the Respondent proved his case on a preponderance of evidence.
4. Whether or not the trial Court property evaluated the evidence placed before it before coming to a decision.

The Respondent raised similar issues but phrased hem differently thus:

1. Whether the trial Court properly admitted the purchase receipt (EXHIBIT A) of the land in dispute.
2. Whether EXHIBIT ‘A’ was admissible in evidence when it did not contain an illiterate jurat.
3. Whether the findings of facts made by the trial court were supported by the evidence placed before it.

From an examination of the Grounds of Appeal in conjunction with the proceedings at the lower Court as contained in the printed record of proceedings, I find that the issues formulated by the Respondent more concisely address the grievances articulated in the said Grounds. I therefore adopt same for determination by this Court.

Issue Number One; Whether the Court properly admitted the purchase receipt (EXHIBIT A) of the land in dispute.

Under this issue, learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that from the totality of the evidence adduced by the Plaintiff, Exhibit A was the instrument with which late Ale Obagbua transferred his land to the Respondent. He contends that such a document as Exhibit A is a document affecting interest in land within the meaning of Section 2 of the Land Registration Law of Ondo State as applicable to Ekiti State. He contends that there is nothing on its face to show that it was registered as a land instrument, and therefore it cannot be pleaded nor admitted as an exhibit in any court. By virtue of Section 16 of the Land Registration Law, Counsel urges the Court to expunge Exhibit A from the record as same cannot be pleaded or admitted as an exhibit. He relies on the decisions in Commissioner for Lands and Housing, Kwara State V Atanda (2007) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1018) 360 at 376; & Agbonawbare V Ogbebor (2007) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1037) 605 at 621. Counsel therefore urged the Court to resolve this issue in favour of the Appellant.

On the part of Counsel for the Respondent he agrees with the Appellant that by virtue of Section 16 of the Land Instrument Registration Law Cap 54 Laws of Ondo State as applicable to Ekiti State, no instrument shall be pleaded or given in evidence in any court as affecting any land unless the same shall have been registered in the proper office, i.e. the Land Registry, as specified in Section 6 of the same Law. Nonetheless, Counsel submits that a receipt is only an acknowledgement of something in writing especially money. Even assuming it is an unregistered registrable instrument, Counsel submits that it is still admissible to prove equitable interest and payment of purchase money or rent. He relied on Olowolaramo V Umechukwu (2003) 2 NWLR (Pt. 805) 537 at 559.