MR. Augustine Thompson Ebem & Anor V. MR. Sunday Nseyen (2016)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

PAUL OBI ELECHI J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

This is an appeal against the Judgment of the High Court of Cross River State, Calabar?Judicial Division, Coram Akan B. Ikpeme which was delivered on the 15th September, 2011 against the Appellant and hence this appeal.

BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE

The facts of this case according to the Appellant is that the Respondent and the 1st?Appellant are both blood- brothers. They all lived together with their families at the property in dispute situate and called No.?14, Akai Close, Calabar. During the life time of their mother. None of them claimed sole ownership of the said property.

However, soon after the death of their mother, the Respondent came up with fraudulent documents of title and started claiming ownership over the said property. He also took steps to eject the Appellants from the area of the property where they reside, right from the life time of their mother. When every attempt to eject the Appellants failed, the Respondent file Suit No. HC/383/2008 at the High Court, Calabar. At the end of trial, the trial Court gave Judgment in favour of the

Respondent on the 15th September, 2011 The Appellant not being satisfied with the Judgment of the Court below filed a Notice and Grounds of Appeal on 19th day of August, 2011 to this Court.

In arguing this appeal, the Appellant distilled four Issues from the five Grounds of appeal for determination.

1. “Whether the documentary evidence such as Exhibits l, 2, 3, 4a and 12 tendered by the Respondent supported the case of the Respondent for the declaration of title to No. 14 Akai close, Calabar- Issue settled from Ground 1 of the Records of Appeal.
2. Whether oral evidence can be adduced to contradict the content of documents tendered in Court and whether documents tendered in whole can be considered in part by the Court.
3. Whether document which did not support the case of a party replying on its can be acted upon to enter judgment against an opponent because the opponent did not tender any document.
4. Whether the Judgment of the trial Court is not perverse and against the weight of evidence by the reason that the Court below wrongly evaluated and ascribed probative value to documents that have no value.

In arguing Issue No. 1 above

which is whether documentary evidence such as Exhibits 1, 2, 3 4a, and 12 tendered by the Respondents support the declaration of title to No. 14 Akai Close, Calabar, Learned Appellants’ Counsel stated that the Respondent relied on documentary evidence to prove title to the property at No. 14 Akai Close Calabar. The Exhibits include Exhibit 1 – Survey Plan of the Land, Exhibit 2 – Permit to erect building, Exhibits 3 – Building Plan, and Exhibit 12 – Agreement of the land dated 29th August, 1976. From the above Exhibits, Learned Appellants Counsel contended that the evidence as captured by these Exhibits are at variance with the pleadings.

No evidence was given by the Respondents to explain why Exhibit 1, when the Respondent testified that he surveyed the land in 1976 is shown to have been drawn on the 7th day of August, 1989. In Exhibit 2, (building permit) the Respondent testified that he bought the land in 1976 and the building permit was also granted same year. But the said Exhibit 2 was shown on the document testified by the Respondent that the document was signed on the 20th November, 1991 and yet no explanation from the Respondent.

Exhibits 2 and 3 were signed on the same date?

of 25th November, 1991 and not 1976 which the Respondent stated during his evidence in Court.

The Respondent’s evidence in Court under cross-examination was that he paid the sum of N7,920.00 as rent for the land in 1976 as contained in Exhibit 12 (land agreement) but Exhibit 4A tendered by the Respondent showed that the receipt of payment for the land was Issued on the 29th September, 1992 without any explanation from the Respondent. Exhibits 4B-4D were tendered as payments for inspection in 1992 when he claimed that he bought the land in 1976.

Inspite of all the above which the trial Court admitted but nonetheless, she gave Judgment to the Respondent only on one reason to wit. The Respondent tendered documents which said Judgment is not based on Law Exhibits 1, 2, 3, 4A -4D and 12 are worthless documents which have not supported the case of the Respondents.