MR. Lawrence Agugu V. Ramatu Buhari & Anor (2016)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

IBRAHIM SHATA BDLIYA, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

This is an appeal against the judgment of the Kano State High Court (the lower Court) delivered on the 8th day of June 2010 by BAYERO, J. in suit No. K/168/2007. The events and or facts culminating to the appeal to this Court are simple and straightforward.

The 1st respondent (the plaintiff) at the lower Court asserted that her property No. 13 Odutola Street, Sabon Gari Kano, was sold to the appellant (defendant at the lower Court) without her consent or authority. That the documents of title were fraudulently obtained to effect the transfer of title documents to the respondent.

?On the other hand, the appellant asserted that the 1st respondent sold the house to him and he paid for it whereby the title documents were given to him by the 1st respondent. That thereafter, he took possession of the house and was collecting rents when the 1st respondent instituted an action against him at the lower Court denying selling the house to him. Pleadings were filed, issues joined and the matter proceeded to trial. After the evidence of witnesses have been taken, and addresses of

1

learned counsel to the parties, the learned judge of the lower Court delivered his judgment on the 8th of June, 2010, granting all the reliefs sought by the 1st respondent. Dissatisfied with the judgment of the lower Court, he appealed to this Court vide Notice and grounds of appeal filed on the 8th September, 2010, which was amended on the 25/2/2015, but deemed filed on the 5th of May, 2015.

?The appellant’s brief of argument was filed on the 9th of June 2015, wherein 6 issues have been culled from the grounds of appeal on page 3 thereof. The 1st respondent filed brief of argument on the 3rd of December, 2015, wherein the 8 issues contained in the appellant’s brief of argument were adopt on page 3 thereof. A Reply brief was filed by the appellant on the 23rd day of December, 2015.

The appeal was argued on the 29th of February, 2015 whereat, learned counsel to the appellant, Uzuegbu Esq., adopted the brief of argument and did urge the Court to allow the appeal, and set aside the judgment of the lower Court. Abere Esq., for the 1st respondent adopted the brief of argument and urged the Court to dismiss the appeal and affirmed the judgment of the lower

2

Court.

An appellate Court can and is entitled to reframe the issue or issues formulated by a party or parties in order to give it precision and clarity if it appears that they are awkward or not well framed. The purpose of reframing issue or issues is to achieve a just and proper determination of an appeal. In other words, the purpose is to narrow the issue or issues in controversy in the interest of accuracy, clarity and brevity. As long as the issue or issues reframed, is/are anchored on the ground or grounds of appeal, the opposite party cannot complain. Okoro v. State (1988)5 NWLR (Pt. 94) 255; Latunde v. Lajinfi (1989) 3 NWLR (Pt. 108) 177.

The issues formulated by both learned counsel in their respective brief of arguments are hereunder compressed thus:

(1). Whether the learned trial judge was not wrong when he failed to dismiss the 1st respondent?s claims having regard to the evidence adduced which are at variance with the pleadings (grounds 6, 9, and 12 of the Amended Notice of appeal).

(2). Whether the learned trial judge of the lower Court properly evaluated the evidence adduced before it in arriving at his decision