Alhaji Garba Dan Sakare V. Alhaji Salawu Bello (2002)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

T. MUHAMMAD, J.C.A. 

Paragraph 19 of the plaintiff’s statement of claim makes the following claim against the defendant:-

“19. WHEREOF the plaintiff claims as follows:-

(i) Declaration that the plaintiff suing for and on behalf of Jamatu Nuru Islam is bona fide purchaser for the value and rightful owner of the said piece of land situate and lying at No. Z 43 Nassarawa Gwom, Jos.

(ii) Perpectual (sic) injunction against the defendant his agents, servant, privies and any other person or persons deriving authority from the defendant from further trespassing on the said piece of land situate and lying at No. Z 43 Nassarawa Gwom, Jos.

(iii) Any other relief that this Honourable Court may deem fit to make in the interest of justice.”

Paragraph 19 of the statement of defence contains defendant’s denial of plaintiff’s claim.

The High Court of Justice Plateau State (Lower Court) heard and determined the suit. The learned trial Judge on the 9th of June, 97, granted all the reliefs sought by the plaintiff. Dissatisfied, the defendant filed a notice of appeal containing three grounds. Leave of court was sought and granted on the 4th day of October for the appellant to file additional grounds of appeal sequel to which six grounds were filed.

Parties filed their briefs of argument in this court. Learned counsel for the appellant distilled six issues for the determination of this court. These issues are:-

“i. Whether from the entire evidence placed before the trial court, can the respondent be said to prove that appellant sold the disputed plot of land to Alhaji Lawal Bello who in turn sold same to the respondent thereby conferring on him (respondent) a valid title to the said plot of land.

ii. Whether the trial court acted rightly when it suo motu relied on the evidence of Alhaji Lawal Bello in exhibit 3 (record of proceedings of a previous suit) and when it did not give the appellant the opportunity to comment/or be heard on same, to arrive at its decision in favour of the respondent.

iii. Whether the trial court rightly ignored the evidence of PW2 in its judgment and whether by so ignoring the evidence of PW2, the trial court had not ignored evidence that did not only support the case of the appellant materially, but which evidence amounted to a tacit admission by the respondent of the appellant case.

iv. Whether the use to which the trial court put exhibit 3 (a record of previous proceedings) in the present suit, is not contrary to law.

v. Whether exhibits 1 and 2 are admissible documents in law and whether the trial court rightly admitted same in evidence.