MR. Haruna Vatsa V. Mrs. Juliana Ugah (2014)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

OLUDOTUN ADEBOLA ADEFOPE-OKOJIE, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

This is an appeal against the Judgment of the High court of Kaduna State presided over by Hon. Justice J. Abiriyi delivered on the 15th day of May 2009 in suit No. KDH /KAD/500/2008.

The claim of the Respondent, as plaintiff before the lower court was for the following:

“The Plaintiff avers that there has never been a time the peaceful possession of the farmland was disturbed by anybody howsoever until the act of trespass by the defendant, which said act has caused the Plaintiff financial loss.”

In opposition, the Defendant, Appellant herein, filed a Statement of Defence and counterclaimed for the sum of N2 Million as general damages for trespass and for the cost of defending the suit.

In proof of her claim, the Respondent testified and called eight witnesses. She tendered one document, Exhibit 1. The other documents sought to be tendered were objected to by the Defendant and consequently rejected by the trial Court. The Appellant similarly testified and called three witnesses. He tendered no documents.

Upon conclusion of trial and the adoption of written addresses by the parties, the trial Judge delivered Judgment in favour of the Respondent, in the following terms:

“The claim of the Plaintiff on the other hand succeeds in part. Judgment is hereby entered in favour of the plaintiff against the Defendant in the following terms:

1. Plaintiff is hereby declared the equitable owner of the plot lying and situate at Ungwan Maisamari Malali, Kaduna.
2. An order of perpetual injunction is hereby made restraining the defendants, his agents, co-heirs, servants and privies or persons claiming through him or on his behalf from doing anything whatsoever on the said farmland situate at Ungwan Maisamari Malali, Kaduna.

Defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the sum of N200,000 being general damages for trespass into the land and N5,000 costs.

As the claim for special damages has not been proved same should be dismissed. The claim for special damages is accordingly dismissed.”

Dissatisfied with the Judgment, the Respondent has appealed to this Court. The parties filed and exchanged Written Briefs of Argument. The Appellants’ Brief of Argument was settled by A.A. Manta Esq. of Manta & Co while the Respondent’s Brief was settled by Morris Odeh Esq. of Morris Odeh & Co.

The Appellant’s counsel, in the Appellant’s Brief of Argument, raised the following issues for determination:

“1) Whether the trial court did not misdirect itself and thereby come to a wrong decision when it held that the evidence of PW6 under cross-examination as to the actual owner of the land though contradicted his evidence in chief same could not change the contents of Exhibit 1.

2) Whether the trial court was right in holding that the contradictions in the plaintiff’s case were mere slips and do not go to the root of the case which is the purchase or otherwise of the farmland.