Ape Salisu & Ors. V Lateef Odumade & Anor (2010)
LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report
I.F. OGBUAGU, J.S.C.
This is an appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeal, Ibadan Division (hereinafter called “the court below”) stated in the Respondents’ Brief to be “Ibadan Judicial Division”) delivered on 3rd April, 2003 affirming the judgment of the Ogun State High Court holden at Ijebu-Ode Judicial delivered on 16th January, 1996 – per Oyewole Osidipe, J, entering judgment in favour of the Plaintiffs/Respondents in respect of all their claims.
Dissatisfied with the said decision, the appellants who were the defendants in the trial court have appealed to this Court on four (4) grounds of appeal which without their particulars, read as follows:
“1. The Justices of Court of Appeal erred in law by holding that “Therefore Okejasi Community is a party to the proceedings where the names of the families are stated and the names of the families within the Community may be interchangeably used to describe the same people as Okejasi Community, the distinction of the names sought to be made by the appellants in issue one is misconceived and refused”.
- Justices of Court of Appeal erred in law when it (sic) held inter alia that “By payment of the rent paid to the plaintiffs there is acknowledgment of the plaintiffs the over Lordships of the entire land.”
“The evidence of possessory right of the plaintiffs/respondents to the land is unassailable”.
- The Justices of Court of Appeal (just as the trial court) erred in law by not considering at all issue No. 5 which was distilled from ground 5 of the ground (sic) of Appeal.
- The Justices of Court of Appeal erred in law and on the facts when they held that “I have read with care, the printed record. I do not see in the record any reliance on the contents of exhibit ‘C’ in the judgment.”
The Plaintiffs/Respondents in the trial High Court, brought the action leading to this appeal, in a representative capacity (with the approval of the court) for themselves and on behalf of Layode, Liyesi, Oludediro and Adebote/Lapogan families of Okejasi Quarter people of Ijebu-Ode, claiming against the Defendants/Appellants described as the children of late Mr. Gafari Folorunsho Ajidagba, in paragraph 23 of their Amended Statement of Claim as follows:
“(1) Possession of the piece or parcel of land situate lying being along Abeokuta Rod, Oke-Ijasi, Ijebu-Ode which the Plaintiffs lease (sic) out to the Defendants’ father late Mr. Gafari Folorunsho Ajidagba.
(2) Mesne profit from January 1985 at the rate of N400.00 per year payable on the said piece or parcel of land until the final determination of the above suit.
(3) Injunction restraining the Defendants their agents, servants and anyone claiming through them from dealing and/or leasing out the said piece of parcel of land or part thereof.”
Pleadings were filed and exchanged by the parties. The original Plaintiffs, called one witness in support of their case. He was the 2nd plaintiff and who was the Secretary of the said families so represented. He tendered some documents. The Defendants/Appellants, called two witnesses in their defence. After addresses by the learned counsel for the parties, the learned trial judge, in a well considered judgment, granted all the reliefs/claims of the Plaintiffs/Respondents. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the Appellants appealed to the court below that dismissed their appeal and affirmed the said judgment of the trial court hence the instant appeal.
The Appellants have formulated in their Brief of Argument, three issues for determination, namely:
- Whether the Court of Appeal was right in holding that named the families (sic) on behalf of whom the Plaintiffs/Respondents instituted the action were synonymous with Okejasi Community.
- Whether the Court of Appeal was right by not considering at all issue No. 5, distilled from ground 5 of the grounds of appeal which deals with exhibit H1 through which the Plaintiffs/Respondents conceded title to the land in dispute to the Defendant/Appellants.
- Whether exhibit ‘C’ which was wrongly admitted in evidence was relied upon by the trial court and the effect of the exhibit on the judgment of the courts”.
I note that the Appellants stated that issue 1, covers ground 1 of the grounds of appeal while issue 2, deals with grounds 2 and 3 of the grounds of appeal.
On their part, the Plaintiffs/Respondents, have also formulated three issues for determination. They read as follows:
“i) Whether the Okejasi Community was made a party to this action (Ground 1);
ii) Whether the Court of Appeal was right in holding that the learned trial Judge did not rely on the contents of Exhibit ‘C’ in arriving at this judgment. (Ground 4),
iii) Whether the Court of Appeal erred in law in failing to consider issue No. 5 of the Appellants’ Brief before it and if so, whether it could have had any major contrary impact of the decision of the lower Court. (Ground 3)”.
When this appeal came up for hearing on 10th November, 2009, both learned counsel for the parties, adopted their respective Brief. While the learned counsel for the Appellants – Kingsley Esq, urged the Court to allow the appeal, Adesokun, Esq. – the learned counsel for the Plaintiffs/Respondents, urged the Court to dismiss the appeal. Thereafter, judgment was reserved till today.
Since the issues are substantially the same although differently numbered and couched, I will deal with them thus:
ISSUE 1 OF BOTH PARTIES
The Appellants submit that the court below, was wrong to have held that Oke Ijasi Community is a party to the proceedings and that the names of the Community may be used interchangeably with the named families. That this is because, it is not part of the pleadings that the four families, are otherwise known as Oke Ijasi Community. I note that the Appellants in paragraph 1 of their Statement of Defence at page 14 of the Records, denied among other paragraphs, paragraph 3 of the Plaintiffs’/Respondents’ Statement of Claim. They did not file an Amended Statement of Defence. It is only a mere denial and contrary to the rule that every defence, reply or answer to an averment in a Statement of Claim, must be pleaded specifically. The effect of the rule as stated by Buckley, L.J. in the case of Re-Robinson’s Settlement, Grant v. Hobbs (1912) 1 Ch. 717, 728,
“is for reasons of practice and justice and convenience, to require the party to tell his opponent what he is coming to court to prove”.
In other words, essential allegations, should be specifically traversed. See the cases of Wallarstein v. Moir (1974) 1 WLR 991 @ 1002; Joseph Constantine Steamship Line v. Imperial Smething Corporation (1952) A.C. 154 @ 174; Metal Construction (W.A.) Ltd. V. Meridian Trade Corporation Ltd. (1990) 5 NWLR (Pt.149) 152 C.A. (on appeal (1998) 3 SCNJ 1 @ 10) citing some other cases including Lewis & Peat (N.R.I.) Ltd. v. A.E. Akhimien (1976) 1 ANLR (Pt. 1) 365, 369; Akintola v. Solano (1986) All NLR 395 @ 421 and Ibeanu & Anor. v. Ogbeide & anor. (1998) 9 SCNJ 77 @ 86 – per Mohammed, JSC just to mention but a few. See also Bullen & Leak & Jacobs Precedent of Pleadings 12th Edition pages 83-84.
However, as rightly submitted in the Plaintiffs/Respondents’ Brief, in the said paragraph 3 of the Amended Statement of Claim at page 21 of the Records, the following is pleaded:
“The plaintiffs take this action for themselves and on behalf of all other members of Layode, Liyesi, Oludediro and Adebote/Lapogan families of Oke-Ijasi Quarter people of Ijebu-Ode”.
At page 6 of the Records, the Plaintiffs/Respondents sought and obtained the approval of the trial court to sue in a representative capacity. In (a) of the said application, the following appear:
“An order giving approval to the authority given by Layode, Liyesi, Oludediro and Adebote/Lapogan families of Oke-Ijasi quarter people, Ijebu-Ode to the Plaintiffs to sue in a representative capacity (i.e. for themselves and on behalf of the said families of Oke-Ijasi quarter people)”.
In the affidavit in support of the said application, in paragraphs 3 and 4 of the affidavit in support at page 7 of the Records, the following are averred.
“3. That the 1st plaintiff is the Head and Oloritun of Oke-Ijasi quarter people of Ijebu-Ode.
- That the said Oke-Ijasi quarter people comprise Layode, Liyesi, Oludediro and Adebote/Lapogan families of Oke-Ijasi quarter of Ijebu-Ode”.
In Exhibit “A” which appears at page 9 of the Records, the following appear inter alia:
“After a brief discussion on the matter the meeting decided that Alhaji Shehu Tijani Alli Obili, the Oloritun from Oludediro Family and Alhaji Saliu Kolawole Arigbabu from Layode Family be and are hereby chosen and empowered to prosecute the case in the Court on behalf of the four families which constitute Oke-Ijasi Community namely, Layode, Liyesi, Oludediro and Adebote/Lapogan”.
(the underlining is mine)
At page 11 of the Records, the trial court ordered as follows:
“Approval is hereby given to the authority given by Layode, Liyesi, Oludediro and Adebote/Lapogan families of Oke-Ijasi Quarters people, Ijebu-Ode to the Plaintiffs/Applicants to prosecute in a representative capacity this suit No. HCJ/61/93 against the children of Late G.F. Ajidagba in connection with family land at Abeokuta Road…”
PW1 – Salihu Kolawole Arigbabu, tendered Exhibit “A” at page 28 of the Records, and he testified inter alia, as follows;
“The four families that the Plaintiffs represent constitute what is invariably described as “Oke-Ijasi Community” in respect of the land in dispute. Both the families and the Okejasi Community mean the same thing in respect of the land in dispute”.
In his judgment, the learned trial Judge at page 34 of the Records, stated inter alia, as follows:
“The Plaintiffs who brought this action in a representative capacity for themselves and on behalf of Layode, Liyesi, Oludediro and Adebote/Lapogan families of Okejasi Quarter people of Ijebu-Ode…”
The court below in its judgment at page 79 of the Records, stated inter alia, as follows:
“In the High Court of Ogun State sitting at Ijebu-Ode, the Plaintiffs applied to commence proceedings against the defendants in a representative capacity. The action therefore commenced with the leave of the court for the plaintiffs named in the proceedings and on behalf of all the other members of Layode, Liyesi, Oludediro and Adebote/Lapogan families of Oke-Ijasi quarter people of Ijebu-Ode.:”.
The Appellants quarrel or contend that Oke-Ijasi quarter people, is not the same as Oke Ijasi community. Wonders it is said, can never end. D.W.1 in his evidence at page 30 of the Records, testified in-chief inter alia, as follows:-
“I know the Plaintiffs as well as the land in dispute…
1st Plaintiff is a member of the community but holds no position within the community”.
There is no where in the Records, where the Appellants claimed that they are members of the families the Plaintiffs/Respondents claim to represent. It is now firmly settled that even the failure to obtain leave to sue in a representative capacity, does not vitiate the validity of the action. See the cases of Alhaji Busari & 3 Ors. v. Oba Oseni & 8 Ors. (1992) 4 NWLR (Pt. 237) 557 @ 582 C.A. and Anabaraonye & 3 ors. v. Nwakaihe (1997) 1 NWLR (Pt. 482) 374 @ 382; (1997) 1 SCNJ 161.
In fact, once pleadings and evidence establish conclusively, a representative capacity and that a case has been fought in that capacity, a trial court will be entitled to enter judgment for and against the party in that capacity, even if an amendment to reflect that capacity, had not been applied for and obtained. It will be otherwise, if the case is not made out in a representative capacity. See the cases of Osinrinde & 7 Ors. v. Ajamogun & 5 Ors. (1992) 7 SCNJ (Pt. 1) 79 @ 114 -115 and Oba Oseni & 14 Ors v. Dawodu & 2 Ors. (1994) 4 NWLR (Pt.339) 390; (19940 4 SCNJ (Pt. 1) 197 citing some other cases therein. Afterwards, a representative action, is seen and considered as an action brought by the body of persons represented, rather than the named plaintiffs only. See the case of Prince Ladejobi & 2 Ors. v. Otunba Oguntayo & 9 os. (2004) 7 SCNJ 298 @ 310 – 311. See also Exhibits B, C and E’ – the letter headed papers of Oke-Ijasi Community showing that it is made up of the four families. As a matter of fact, in Exhibit ‘B1’ – the Reply letter from the DW1 to the PW1, he referred to the co-operation that had existed between “you people of Oke-Ijasi and late Pa G.F. Ajidagba”. Exhibit “E” and ‘F’ were addressed to Oke-Ijasi Community.
In the Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary “Community” is defined as all the people who live in a particular area, etc when talked about as a group,Chambers of 20th Century Dictionary, New Edition 1983 referred to in the Plaintiffs/Respondents’ Brief, it is defined as people having common rights etc, a body of persons in the same locality. The court below held at pages 69-70 of the Records inter alia, as follows:
“The answer to the appellants’ question is contained at the commencement of the proceedings in the court below. At the beginning the respondent sought and obtained the leave of the court to act for the named plaintiffs. The four named families of the plaintiffs are all of Okejasi Community in Ijebu-Ode. The clear effect of the order granted by the court is that the named plaintiffs as parties all belong to Okejasi Community, Ijebu-Ode. No evidence has been presented in court to the contrary. Therefore Okejasi community is a party to the proceedings where the names of the families are stated and the name of the families within the Community may be interchangeably used to describe the same people as Okejasi Community, the distinction of the names sought to be made by appellants in issues one is misconceived and refused”.
(the underlining mine).
I completely agree. The above findings of facts and holdings are clear and unambiguous. I have hereinabove in this judgment, demonstrated this obvious fact.
I have gone this length because of the unnecessary fuss and the hollow and misconceived misconception by the Appellants, that the court below erred in holding that the named families on behalf of whom the plaintiffs/respondents instituted the action, were synonymous with Oke-Ijasi community. Even common sensically, I hardly see the relevance in this issue 1 of the Appellants. It is time wasting and I will eventually touch on why they are hanging on a straw so to say/speak like a drowning man. I have no hesitation in rendering my answer to issue 1 of the parties, in the Affirmative/positive.
ISSUE 2 OF THE APPELLANTS AND ISSUE 3 OF THE PLAINTIFFS/RESPONDENTS
The complaint of Appellants in my respectful view in effect, is that firstly, the court below regarded or traced the payment of rent to the Plaintiffs/Respondents as amounting to an acknowledgement of the Plaintiffs/Respondents as overlords of the entire land or the land in dispute. That it erred in holding that the evidence of possessory right of the Plaintiffs/Respondents to the land in dispute, is unassailable. Secondly, that the court below failed to consider the failure of the trial court, to advert its mind to Exhibit H and its effect on the case of the Plaintiffs/Respondents. The court is urged to send back the case for retrial.
Since an appeal is in the nature of re-hearing in respect of all issues raised in respect of a case, I will deal with Exhibit H1 and its effect, if any. See case of Sabrue Motors Nig. Ltd. v. Rajab Enterprises Nig. Ltd. (2002) 4 SCNJ 370 @ 382; Order 8 rule 2(1) and of the Supreme Court, Rules. The Appellants insist that in Exhibit H1, the Plaintiffs/Respondents conceded title of the land in dispute to the Appellants. With the greatest respect to the learned counsel to the Appellants, this is a gross misconception. I will show this hereunder. It is firmly settled that an Appellate Court is in as good a position as a trial court, in the evaluation of documentary evidence. This Court, can examine an exhibit or exhibits in question and draw necessary inferences. See the case of Gonzee Nig. Ltd. v. Nigeria Educational Research & Development Council & 2 Ors. (2005) 6 SC (Pt. 1) 75 @ 35; (2005) All FWLR (Pt. 274) 235 @ 247 – 248 and Order 8 Rule 12(2) of the Rules of this Court.
Now, Exhibit H1 was shown to the PW1 and was tendered through him during examination without objection. In paragraph 8 of the Amended Statement of Claim. It was/is pleaded as follows:
“The Defendants’ father during the pendency of the lease, sublet part of land in dispute to Texaco Nigeria Ltd., who has since built a Petrol Filing (sic) Station thereon. The Defendants have, since the death of their father, been receiving ground rent from Texaco Nigeria.”
In paragraph 22 thereof, it is averred as follows:
“The Defendants through the 12th Defendant, collected ground rents from Texaco Nigeria and have failed and/or refused to pay to the Plaintiffs since January 1985, the rent of N400.00 per year in respect of the piece of land in dispute, despite an agreement reached between the Plaintiffs and Defendants through the 12th Defendant. The Plaintiffs will at trial tender and rely on a letter dated February 25, 1987, written to the 1st Plaintiff by Texaco Nigeria, Limited”.
Exhibit ‘G’ is the letter from Texaco Nigeria Ltd. It is not in dispute that the land in dispute was leased to Texaco Nig. Ltd. by the said late father of the Appellants who tendered Exhibit “J” made during the pendency of the lease of the Appellants’ said late father. Exhibit H1, is a letter to the 12th Defendant – i.e. DW.1. It is dated 25th May, 1984 and it is clearly headed “Texaco Petrol Filling Station Abeokuta Road, Ijebu-ode, Ogun-State”
My or the reading of the contents of the letter, leaves me in no doubt that “the landed property:” refers to and it is the Petrol Filing Station above stated in the said letter. The plaintiffs/respondents had invited the DW1 to a meeting with them in respect of the land in dispute and the payment of the rent of N400.00 (four hundred naira) agreed to by the DW1 with the Plaintiffs/Respondents. More importantly, there is Exhibit ‘B1’ – a letter written by the DW1 on behalf of the family, to the Plaintiffs/Respondents dated 28th October, 1983 through their secretary which was tendered without objection. It reads as follows:
“TENANCY AGREMENT EXPIRATION
We acknowledge the receipt of your letter dated 25th day of October 1983 under the above subject matter and to express thanks for your past co-operation which has existed within you people of Oke-Ijase and the late Pa. G. F. Ajidagba for over 30 years without any dispute or rancor may God continue to bless you.
We took notice of paragraph 3 of your letter and to express our desire for the continue usage of the premises as a filling (sic) petrol station for Texaco of Nigeria Ltd. Which still up to the time of writing this letter have vested interest in the premises. We shall therefore, be grateful for an opportunity to meet you people for the negotiation of a rent revision, and exercising of lease options in due course at your earlier convenience.
We thank you for your co-operation”.
[the underlining mine]
The said letter referred to above in Exhibit ‘B1’ is Exhibit ‘B’ and its said paragraph 3, reads inter alia, as follows:
“The then lease agreement was prepared at the 1st day of January, 1974 for (10) Ten years expires on the 31st day of December, 1983, as aforementioned and therefore claiming for the possession as early as possible”.
Exhibit “B” acknowledged the receipt of the payment of N240.00 (two hundred and forty naira) being the last payment and therein, informed the said family of the Appellants, that he said lease to their late father, would be expiring on 31st December, 1983. It was as a result of the above correspondence, that gave rise to a meeting of the plaintiff’/respondents’ family with the DW1 on 11th March, 1984. Thereafter, the PW1 then wrote Exhibit ‘H’ to the DW1 which reads as follows:
Dear Sir,
TEXACO PETROL FILLIGN STATION
ABEOKUTA ROAD IJEBU ODE OGUN/S
At the general meeting of the above named Community Ijebuode held on Monday 11th march 1984 of which you were present by our invitation.
Our purpose of inviting you to this meeting was to inform you that monthly rental charges for the above land is N120.00 per month which is N1440.00 per year. Beginning 1st January 1984. Your reply then was you will go home to ponder over it; That your decision would be communicated to us soon.
On Tuesday the 13th March 1984, we received your letter dated 12/3/84. Content Offering to pay N400.00 a year which is N30.34k per month against our N120.00 per month.
We regret our inability to accept this offer due to the fact that you have drastically cut it down , it is very low, four hundred naira a year.
In conclusion, we can only agree to fix rate of N600.00 a year please. Should you agree to this amount of N600.00. You can proceed immediately for the preparation for lease agreement for five years only.
Looking forward to hearing from you soon.
Yours faithfully
Signed
L. A. Oduwole. For”
In Exhibit E, the DW1 wrote as follows:
“Ladokun Ajidagba Organisation
Installer and Supplier of Private Automatic Branch Exchange (PABX)
Private Branch Exchange (PBX) Inter Comm and Radio Phone.
BUILDER TRANSPORTER AND GENERAL CONTRACTOR
ADDRESS
Ajidagba’s Compound
Abeokuta Road, Ijebu Ode Phone 433928
POSTER ADDRESS BANKER
P. O. Box 478 UNION BANK OF NIGERIA
Ijebu Ode Ijebu Ode
Our Ref: Your Ref. Date: 12-3-84
The Oke Ijasi Community
c/o 10 Oke-Ijasi Street,
Ijebu Ode.
TENANCY AGREEMENT
Further to our discussion on the above subject matter, I am to say that after due consideration of the matter, I shall be grateful if the Community will allow me to be paying the sum of N400.00 per year in view of the downward trend in Oil trade in the country.
I shall be grateful if my application is considered
Thanks for your co-operation.
Your Son,
SIGNED
L. AJIDAGBA.”
Then in Exhibit “F”, he replied as follows:
“Ladokun Ajidagba Organisation
Installer an Supplier of Private Automatic Branch Exchange (PABX)
Private Branch Exchange (PBX) Inter Comm and Radio Phone.
BUILDER TRANSPORTER AND GENERAL CONTRACTOR
ADDRESS
Ajidagba’s Compound
Abeokuta Road, Ijebu Ode Phone 433928
POSTER ADDRESS BANKER
P. O. Box 478 UNION BANK OF NIGERIA
Ijebu Ode Ijebu Ode
Our Ref: Your Ref. Date: 12-3-84
The Oke Ijasi Community
c/o 10 Oke-Ijasi Street,
Ijebu Ode.
Dear Sir,
Texaco Filling Station Abeokuta Road, Ijebu-Ode
I received your letter of 19/3/84, and to thanks the Community for given me an opportunity to use again the Community Land for up bringing late my father’s name who as the first user of the said land.
On the issue of payment I beg to appeal to the Community to consider the proposed payment of N400.00 per year in view of the situation in the country and more over the Ogun State Government has also demanded another N300.00 per year on all the petrol stations apart from the yearly tax on land use.
You will take note and see that I have made over 300% increase on the new rate of payment to what we use to pay before, and since we are all the same in the community I beg that my payment proposal be approved in the name of God.
May God bless you all Amen.
Yours
SIGNED
I. AJIDAGBA”.
It can easily be seen that Exhibit ‘H1’, was a letter written after ‘H’. But the learned counsel of the Appellants, have taken advantage of the trial court especially and the court below, not reproducing in their respective judgment as at the time of trial, the contents of these vital or material documentary exhibits tendered in evidence, that the Appellants, decided to hang on Exhibit ‘H1’ to falsely assert that the Plaintiff/Respondents, conceded title of the land in dispute to the Appellants. Of course, there is Exhibit J. in which the late father of the Appellants, gave to the Oil Company, the impression that he was the “owner” instead of a tenant in the land in dispute. When the PW1 wrote Exhibit H1, of course, the Petrol Filling Station could be said to be ‘owned’ and ‘belong’ so to speak, to the father of the DW1.
In Exhibit ‘G’, the company in their reply to the letter from a member of the plaintiff/appellant’s family – The original 1st Plaintiff, stated inter alia, as follows:-
“It is pertinent to say that any accrued rents due to you can only be recovered by you from our present landlord, Mr. L. Ajidagba.”
Learned counsel for litigants, must please, always bear in mind that they are Ministers in the Temple of Justice and must therefore, (however tempted) avoid any act or thing that will ridicule or impugne the integrity of any trial judge or Appellate Justice as has been with respect deliberately done in the case leading to this appeal. It is unfortunate. I have no hesitation whatsoever, in holding that this issue is also bogus, a ruse and made in very bad faith in order to deceive and mislead the court or on the unwary, hence the scanty reply/or response by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs/respondents to their Brief. The Appellants and their learned counsel I believe, though that this issue, is/was their strongest “wicket”. But it has turned out to be so to speak, their weakest “wicket”. However, my answer to the said issue, is that assuming that the court below did not consider it, this court, is entitled to consider it and has indeed considered it and therefore, holds, that there is no concession and there could never have been any such concession as claimed by the Appellants.
ISSUE 3 OF THE APPELLANTS AND ISSUE (ii) OF THE PLAINTIFFS/RESPONDENTS
The Appellants concede that the court below, rightly held that exhibit ‘C’ which was not written in the language of the court, is not admissible. But it is submitted that it erred when it held that the trial court did not rely on the exhibit at the trial. That this is because, the trial court relied on the exhibit at page 43 lines 11 to 17 of the Records. That if the court below, had adverted its mind to the fact that the trial court relied on exhibit ‘C’, it would have come to a different conclusion and that this Court should allow the appeal on this ground. Although it is not indicated in the Appellants’ Brief of Argument, I take it that this issue, is distilled from Ground 4 of the Grounds of Appeal. I will deal with it. With respect, I agree with the Plaintiffs/respondents that the Appellants, misunderstood the court below – per Omage, JCA and I will add that this is another gross misconception of what the court below stated in this respect or regard. The court below held at page 71 of the Records inter alia, as follows:
“I have read with care, the printed record, I do not see in the record any reliance by the Court below on the contents of exhibit C in the judgment. Exhibit C did not feature in the determination of the issue which awarded judgment to the plaintiffs. Exhibit C in Yoruba is not as potent in persuasion as exhibit D – D1 which established the existence of tenancy between the Defendants now Appellants. In the event of exhibit C, which now said to be written in Yoruba, is expunged from the proceedings the judgment of the Court below will still be valid, and competent based on other exhibits. Exhibit C, should not have been admitted in Evidence Act (sic) in the proceeding, it is expunged, see 16 Court of Appeal”. (sic)
The above is clear and unambiguous. Having expunged Exhibit “C”, what else I or one may ask. So even, if Exhbit C was relied on by the trial court (which is not conceded because the trial court merely referred to the exhibit, but did not rely on it), having been expunged by the court below on the ground that Exhibit C was inadmissible in evidence and should not have been admitted in evidence by the trial court, that is/was the end of the matter. I so hold. I see no substance in this issue which is accordingly dismissed by me.
Finally, there is also the concurrent findings of fact and holdings by the two lower courts. For the umpteenth time, the attitude of this court has remained and will remain, except in exceptional circumstances that are obvious having regard to the facts of each ease, that it will not disturb or interfere with such findings and facts as in the instant case. The documentary evidence in this case, is overwhelming and damning. If there are any appeals that are worthless and hopelessly unmeritorious and lack substance in all their circumstantial, this is one of them. It fails and it is accordingly dismissed. This court in no unmistakable language, deprecates the greed and ingratitude brazenly displayed by the Appellants and those they represent in this matter leading to this appeal. I have no doubt in my mind that it is the income they derive from the company, that is responsible for their later most disgraceful and condemnable claim of ownership of the land in dispute.
Costs follows the event. The Plaintiffs/Respondents are entitled to costs of N50,000 (Fifty thousand naira) payable to them by the Appellants. I wish the Rules had given this Court a discretion in respect of award of costs. I should have awarded punitive costs against the Appellants. I accordingly, affirm the decision of the court below affirming the judgment of the trial courts.
SC.174/2003