Jauro Jaka Yani & Ors V. Alhaji Bappa Abbare (2013)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

JUMMAI HANNATU SANKEY, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

The Appellants herein, led by Jauro Jaka Yani, were Defendants in a suit before the Upper Area Court, Jalingo, wherein the Respondent, Alhaji Bappa Abbare, as Plaintiff therein, had sought for the following reliefs:

a. “A declaration of title to a piece of land lying and situate at Walowol Tibaty.

b. An order of perpetual injunction against the Defendants and general damages of N1, 000, 000,00 (One Million Naira).”

To prove this claim, the Respondent adduced evidence through four (4) witnesses and two (2) exhibits, marked A and A1, being a receipt and a Customary Certificate of Occupancy issued by Karim Lamido Local government Council in Taraba State. In their defence, the Appellants adduced evidence through five (5) witnesses, but tendered no exhibit. At the close of evidence, both learned Counsel addressed the trial Court.

Thereafter, the learned trial Upper Area Court Judge delivered a well-considered Judgment in favour of the Respondent awarding title to him as claimed in his Writ of Summons. Dissatisfied by this decision, the Appellants herein filed an Appeal against same before the High Court of Taraba State.

Sitting in its appellate jurisdiction the Court below, after due consideration, affirmed the decision of the trial Court. Still unhappy with that decision, the Appellants have approached this Court via a Notice and Grounds of Appeal dated 3rd September, 2012, leave to so appeal having been granted by this Court on 12th March, 2012. The Grounds upon which they complain, without their particulars are as follows:

Ground One

1. The lower Court erred in law when it held that exhibit A the Customary Certificate of Occupancy issued him by Karim Lamido Local Government Council in favour of the Respondent and also the evidence of PW1-PW4 sufficiently identified the disputed land satisfactorily beyond any doubt (Page 83 lines 8-22 of the Record of Proceedings).

Ground Two

2. The lower Court erred in law when it held that they were unable to disturb the findings of facts by the learned trial Judge on the evidence of the 4th witness, whose evidence was regarded as tainting, very untruthful, insincere and evidence of an interested witness who has come to court to defend the interest of his community. (Page 80 lines 3-10 and Page 88 lines 1-27.

Ground Three

3. The lower court erred in law when it affirmed the decision of the trial Court in declaring all that parcel of land that situates and lies at Bujum measuring 350 hecters (sic) in favour of the Respondent and dismissing the Appeal of the Applicants. Page 88-89 lines 26-29.

The parties before this Court filed and exchanged their Briefs of argument in line with the Rules guiding procedure in this Court. On the 30th May, 2013, when this Appeal was called up for hearing, both the Appellants and their Counsel were not in Court, despite the fact that a hearing notice had been duly served on Counsel. Thus, pursuant to the Rules of this Court, the un-dated Appellants’ Brief of argument filed on 30-10-12 was deemed argued. Learned Counsel for the Respondent, Mr. H.M. Rabiu, on his own part, adopted and relied on the Respondent’s Brief of argument, dated 26-11-12 and filed on 07-12-12, as the Respondent’s arguments in this Appeal. He urged the Court to dismiss the Appeal in its entirety.

The Appellants, in their Brief of argument distilled one issue from their three (3) Grounds of Appeal, and the Respondent adopted the said issue so formulated as the issue by which this Appeal should be determined. The issue is also adopted by this Court for the resolution of this Appeal, and so, is set out hereunder:

Whether, their lordships of the High Court, Jalingo, were right in affirming the decision of the trial Upper Area Court in dismissing the Appeal on the ground that it lacked merit.

In arguing this issue, learned Counsel for the Appellants, Chief J.R. Ndawalam, submits that the Appeal before the High Court questioned chiefly the following issues which, it contended, were not properly dealt with by the Court: