Ayodele Solomon Femi & Anor V. Oba Adesote Adegboyega & Anor (2014)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

OBIETONBARA DANIEL-KALIO, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

This is an appeal in respect of the judgment of the lower court in a land dispute. The parties in the case set up rival claims in their claims and counter-claims before the lower court in respect of ownership of the land in dispute which is located in Ayede in Ogun Waterside Local Government Area of Ogun State.

After considering the evidence adduced by the parties and the submissions of their respective learned counsel, the learned trial judge found no merit in the case of the claimants. He was however satisfied with the case of the counter-claimants and therefore entered judgment in their favour.

The claimants who are now the appellants in this appeal were aggrieved by the judgment of the lower court. They therefore filed a Notice of Appeal on 26/11/12 challenging the judgment which judgment was delivered on 22/10/12. Learned Counsel to the appellants gave four grounds of appeal in the Notice of Appeal and buttressed the grounds of appeal with copious particulars of how the trial judge erred and misdirected himself.

For reasons of conciseness I shall not reproduce the grounds of appeal. Suffice it that in the Brief of Argument filed on 30/9/13 pursuant to the Notice of Appeal and deemed as properly filed and served on 28/4/14, the appellants formulated four issues for determination.

The four issues for determination did not indicate the grounds of appeal that they relate to. That is not good enough. Our courts have always stated that an issue for determination must arise from and relate to the grounds of appeal. See Kalu vs. Odili (1992) NWLR part 340.

How will one easily know that an issue for determination arises from and relates to the grounds of appeal when the issues for determination do not indicate the grounds of appeal they relate to? Our courts have a lot of work as it is, and should not be further saddled with the task of identifying which issues relate to which grounds of appeal. Learned Counsel should be alive to their duties in this regard.

The four issues for determination formulated by the appellants counsel are the following:

i. Whether the trial court had the jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate on the Amended Statement of Defence and Counter-Claim and list of documents of the Respondents which were signed by an undisclosed counsel for and on behalf of Isaiah A. Okoigi Esq.

ii. Whether the trial court did properly evaluate the evidence of the parties as presented by them before it;

iii. Whether the trial court was right in holding that evidence of facts in recent years which by our case law is the best way to test and resolve conflicts in traditional evidence and should have been subjected to the rule in Kojo II vs. Bonsie (1957) 1 NLR 1223;

iv. Whether the partition of the land in dispute as pleaded and proved by the claimants/appellants was impeached under cross-examination by the Defendants/Respondents.

I pause here to say that I cannot make much sense out of issue (iii) above. My guess is that the issue deals with whether the trial judge properly applied the rule in Kojo II vs. Bonsie in arriving at which of the traditional evidence adduced by the parties is to be preferred.

The Respondents in their Brief of Argument filed on 28/4/14 were of the view that the four issues of the appellants amounted to a proliferation of issues. They were of the view that the appellants issues 2 – 4 overlap and can be conveniently reduced into one issue. The respondents therefore formulated the following two issues: