Datoegoem Dakat Vs Musa Dashe (1997)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

O. OGWUEGBU, J.S.C 

The appellant was the plaintiff in the Senior District Court of Plateau State holden at Shendam. He claimed against the defendant who is the respondent herein, the sum of N5,000.00 being special and general damages for trespass. His claim was dismissed by the Senior District Judge and he appealed to the High Court of Plateau State. The High Court sitting in its appellate jurisdiction dismissed the appeal. His appeal to the Court of Appeal, Jos Division, was also dismissed by that court and he has further appealed to this court.

The facts leading to the proceedings can be summarised as follows:

Both the plaintiff and the defendant are farmers residing at Kwande District ofShendam Local Government Area of Plateau State. The plaintiff in his statement of claim averred that he is the holder of Shendam Local Government Certificate of Occupancy in respect of over 573.8 hectares of farm land at Kwali-Gida village dated 6th March, 1985. He averred that he cleared the said farm land, cultivated it and purchased rice seedlings which he planted on the farm. He further averred that the defendant wrongfully entered the said farm between April and May, 1985 and claimed as stated above.

The defendant denied liability. He led evidence in the trial court that the farm land belonged to him, that when he saw the plaintiff ploughing the land, he asked him to stop but the plaintiff went ahead ploughing the land. He reported the plaintiff to the Chief of Kwande who visited the farm and found that the farmland belonged to him (defendant). The defendant later planted rice on the farm. From the grounds of appeal filed the plaintiff who is the appellant in this court identified the following issues for determination:

“(a) Whether or not the Court of Appeal was right in law in confirming the decision of the trial court when the said decision was null and void for lack of jurisdiction

(b) Whether the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal erred in law in confirming the decision of the High Court that the appellant failed to prove special damages merely because he did not produce receipts at the trial

(c) Whether the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal erred in law in holding that despite documentary and real evidence the High Court was right in disbelieving the appellant by relying on the witnesses’ demeanour

(d) Whether it is the proper function of an Appeal Court to embark on the rewriting of judgment appealed against in order to defeat the appeal when there is no cross-appeal or respondent’s notice to affirm the judgment on other grounds”

When the appeal came up for hearing on 6-10-97, both parties were absent and were not represented by counsel. The appellant filed a brief of argument on 3:10:91 and the defendant did not file any brief. Under Order 6, rule 8(b) of the Supreme Court Rules, 1985 the appeal was treated as having been argued on the appellant’s brief.

In appellant’s brief of argument which was prepared by Dr. Ameh, S.A.N., it was submitted in issue number (a) that the claim before the Senior District Judge was in trespass and injunction and that the court was legally bound to confine itself to the claim as laid by the plaintiff/appellant. He submitted that the trial court had jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s claim and that in order to succeed in his claim, all the plaintiff needed to prove was possession and not ownership of the land. He relied on the cases of Ekpan v. Uyo (1986)3 NWLR (Pt. 26) 63 at page 66 and Salami v. Oke (1987) 4 NWLR (Pt.63) 1 at page 13. He contended that the plaintiff proved possessory right, tendered his Certificate of Occupancy No. 5197 which was admitted in evidence as Exhibit “B” and by virtue of Exhibit “B” he had exclusive possession of the land which he cultivated. It was also submitted that the appellant’s evidence that he cleared, cultivated and planted on the land was not challenged.

It was further submitted that the issue of title was not raised bonafide by the defendant/respondent and that the trial court should have ignored it in accordance with the principle laid down by this court in Eboh v. Akpotu (1968) NMLR 278 and that in view of Exhibit “B” – the Certificate of Occupancy, the trial court should have looked only at the claim and not the defence to determine whether the suit is within its jurisdiction or not. He referred to the case of Akinsanya v. U.S.A Ltd. (1986) 4 NWLR (Pt.35) 273. It was also contended that the High Court, Jos erred in law in confirming the decision of the Senior District Court when the said Court lacked the jurisdiction to hear the case and that the court below equally erred in law when it confirmed the decision of the High Court which confirmed the finding of the Senior District Court which believed the evidence of D.W.1 and D.W.2 that

“the farm belongs to the defendant”. The learned Senior Advocate relied on section 12(2)(a) of the District Courts Law, Cap.33, Laws of Northern Nigeria, 1963.

The finding of the Senior District Judge which gave rise to the issue of jurisdiction is contained in the following passage of his judgment: