Search a Keyword!

Search our legal repository for any term from articles, statutes to cases

Ishola Akinlaso V. Suebatu Ile Onimago (1973) LLJR-SC

Ishola Akinlaso V. Suebatu Ile Onimago (1973)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

G. B. A. COKER, J.S.C

We are satisfied that this appeal has no merits. A number of grounds of appeal were canvassed before us and these attack the findings of fact by the Upper Area Court, the reception of the evidence of unsworn witnesses, the lack of certainty of the land in dispute and the conduct of the inspection at the locus in quo. These matters were all canvassed on appeal before the High Court which, rightly in our view, rejected the submissions on them.

The visit to the locus in quo was in our view properly conducted and the intrusion by other persons took place when the defendant started to make claims which the people standing by considered to be fantastic and to be ridiculous and when the defendant himself told the court that those people were all his witnesses. With respect to the identity of the land, learned counsel would appear to overlook the fact that at the inspection, the Upper Area Court measured the land in dispute and found it to be 67ft x 131ft; when this is considered along with the evidence that both parties showed the court the extent of the land at the inspection, it is idle to contend that the land as awarded to the plaintiff was not certain.

We do not agree with the submissions of learned counsel for the defendant that the witnesses whether at the trial or at the locus were not sworn. There is nothing on the records of appeal to show this for apparently, the trial Judge was in the habit of not recording the fact of swearing of witnesses and we do not see any grounds for acceding to an argument which in these circumstances concedes that some of the witnesses were in fact sworn in but that others were not sworn.

In the event, all the grounds of appeal argued on behalf of the defendant fail and the appeal fails as well. The appeal is dismissed and the appellant will pay to the respondent the costs of the appeal fixed at N65.

See also  Shell B.P Ltd .v Jacob Abedi & Ors (1974) LLJR-SC

Other Citation: (1973) LCN/1708(SC)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *