James D. Lafiro v. Pastor Nadabo & Ors (2024)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

UGOCHUKWU ANTHONY OGAKWU, JCA (Delivering the leading judgment)

This action was commenced at the Upper Area Court, Kaltungo, Gombe State, wherein the appellant herein as claimant before the trial Upper Area Court sued the respondents herein for trespassing onto his farmland by exceeding beyond the boundary of their separate contiguous lands.

The respondent denied the claim and the matter was subjected to a plenary hearing with the parties adducing testimonial evidence. The trial Upper Area Court entered judgment in favour of the appellant herein, conclusively holding that:

Base [sic] on the reason we stated above we conferred [sic] title of the disputed land to the plaintiff James Lafiro base [sic] on the weight of evidence adduced by the plaintiff.

The respondents herein were dissatisfied with the decision of the Upper Area Court and they appealed against the same to the appellate jurisdiction of the High Court of Gombe State (hereinafter the lower court) in appeal No. GM/19A/2014: Pastor Nadabo & Anor. v. James D. Lafiro.

The lower court heard the parties on their respective briefs of argument filed before it and, in its judgment, delivered on 4th April 2016, it allowed the appeal and set aside the decision of the trial Upper Area Court and dismissed the action.

The appellant herein, dissatisfied with the decision of the lower court has appealed against the same by notice of appeal filed on 10th April 2017, pursuant to the leave of this court in that regard granted on 5th April 2017.

The order granting leave to appeal is at page 1 of the additional record of appeal. The chafed judgment of the lower court is at pages 125 – 132 of the records of appeal, while the notice of appeal is at pages 153 – 157 of the records of appeal.

Upon the compilation and transmission of the records of appeal and additional record of appeal, the parties filed and exchanged briefs of argument which learned counsel adopted and relied upon at the hearing of the appeal. In the appellants brief which was filed on 7th May 2018, but deemed as properly filed on 26th May 2022, the appellant formulated three issues for determination, namely:

1. Whether or not the appellant has not provided and proved his root of title to warrant the lower court confirm the decision of the trial court which affirmed the title of the disputed land to the appellant. Distilled from grounds 1 and 5
2. Whether the lower court was right to have dismissed the appellants case delivered by the trial Upper Area Court Kaltungo in suit No. KUAC/ICFI/39/2012, without properly re-evaluating the evidence adduced before the trial court. Distilled from grounds 2 & 3
3. Whether or not the lower court was right to have set aside the decision of the trial court on the bases that the appellant as plaintiff did not established [sic] the identity of the dispute [sic] land before the trial court. Distilled from ground 4.

The respondents in their brief of argument filed on 14th September 2022, but deemed as properly filed on 9th June 2023, distilled two issues for determination as follows:

1. Whether the appellant has established his claim before the trial court to not warrant the decision of the lower court allowing the appeal of the respondents (grounds 1, 4, & 5)
2. Whether the lower court was right to set aside the judgment of the trial court and dismiss the claim of the appellant before the trial court. (Grounds 2 & 3)

I have duly considered the respective issues for determination formulated by the parties vis-a-vis the grounds of appeal and the decision of the lower court and it seems to me that a sole distensible issue which encompasses the issues crafted by the parties would suffice for the determination of this appeal.

It is rudimentary law that a court of law, which is the mediator so to say, has a duty to examine the facts properly and take issues that will resolve the matter before it once and for all: Enekwe v. IMB (Nig.) Ltd. (2007) 11 WRN 1; (2007) 1 SCMLR 117 at 136; (2006) 19 NWLR (Pt. 1013) 146 at 170. Put differently, the court is free to either adopt the issue formulated by the parties or to formulate such issues that are consistent with the grounds of appeal. See Labiyi v. Anretiola (1992) 8 NWLR (Pt. 258) 139 at 159, Dung v. Gyang (1994) 8 NWLR (Pt. 362) 15 and Onwo v. Oko (1996) 6 NWLR (Pt. 346) 584.

In this wise, the issue which I will shortly distill will not be an alternative to the issues nominated by the parties, it will rather be cumulative with the issues formulated by the parties vide Sanusi v. Ameyogun (1992) 4 NWLR (Pt. 237) 527 at 550-551, Neka B. B. B. Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. ACB Ltd. (2004) 15 WRN 1; (2004) 17 NSCQR 240 at 250-251 and Sterling Bank Plc. v. Suleiman (2016) 50 WRN 153; (2016) LPELR (41261) 1 at 6-7. The issue which I find apt and bespoke is:

Whether on the preponderance of evidence and balance of probabilities, the decision of the lower court setting aside the decision of the trial Upper Area Court is the correct decision.