Mrs. Lydia Omoware Thompson V Alhaji Jimoh Arowolo (2003)
LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report
A.O. EJIWUNMI, JSC
The action that culminated in this appeal was commenced by the appellants when they took out a writ of summons against the respondent on the 10th day of June, 1983. Following the order that pleadings be filed, the parties duly filed and exchanged their pleadings. The appellants also filed with the leave of the trial Court an amended reply to the Statement of Defence filed by the respondent. The case was therefore heard on the issues as joined by the parties in their pleadings.
The appellants by their Statement of Claim pleaded thus at pages 4-6 of the Printed Record:-
1 The 1st plaintiff is the daughter of one Frederick Ephraim Williams who died testate at Palm Church Street, Lagos on the 12th day of November, 1918 and probate of his Will was granted to the two Executors and Trustees named in his Will.
The 2nd plaintiff is a private Limited Liability company incorporated under the Laws of Nigeria and having offices at No. 3 Tonode Street, Ikeja, Lagos State.
The defendant is the head and represents the Olarokun Family of Orile, Agege.
The said Frederick Ephraim Williams (deceased) owned tracts of farm lands along Iju Railway Station, Iju and this formed part of his Estate when he died in 1918.
Under and by virtue of the Supreme Court Order dated 11th day of March 1947 in Suit No. P21/1918. The Trustees of the said Frederick Ephraim Williams were released from administering the Estate and the task was transferred to the Public Trustee appointed for the purpose.
By an Order of Court dated the 29th day of May 1961 made in Suit No. M/18/61 (after protracted litigation between the Public Trustee and the beneficiaries of the Will of the said Frederick Ephraim Williams) the High Court at Lagos ordered that the property of Frederick Ephraim Williams (deceased) be apportioned or partitioned amongst the beneficiaries.
Pursuant to the said Order of the High Court and the ensuing apportionment made there under a piece of landed property knows as Plot No. 14 part of the estate of Frederick Ephraim Williams (deceased) situate at Iju Railway Station, Iju in the Ikeja Division of Lagos State was apportioned to the 1st plaintiff.
Under and by virtue of a Deed of assent dated the 5th day of July 1977 and registered as No. 85 at page 75 in volume 1638 of the Lands Registry in the office at Lagos the Public Trustee as the Legal Personal representative of Frederick Ephraim Williams (deceased) vested in the 1st plaintiff all that piece or parcel of farm land measuring approximately 12.85 acres (being the said plot No 14 in the estate of Frederick Ephraim Williams (deceased) situate lying and being at Iju Railway Station in the Ikeja Division of Lagos State in fee simple in possession free from all encumbrances.
The late Frederick Ephraim Williams was throughout his life in uninterrupted possession and ownership of the farmland of which the land the subject matter of this suit formed a part and so were the Trustees of his Estate including the Public Trustee appointed under the Order of Court.
By a purchase Receipt Agreement made on 22nd day of January, 1978 the 1st plaintiff transferred her interest in the said Plot No. 14 of the Estate of Frederick Ephraim Williams at Iju Railway Station, Iju to the 2nd plaintiff (Kosemani Enterprises Limited) in consideration of the sum of N44,000.00
The 2nd plaintiffs (sic) were thereupon immediately put in possession.
The defendant and / or his agents on or around went on the said Plot No. 14 at Iju Railway Station and committed various acts of trespass on the land by removing the beacons erected by the 2nd plaintiff’s surveyor, divided the land into plots, have sold and continued to sell to various persons who have been erecting buildings on the said land.
That despite repeated warnings from the plaintiffs to desist from the said acts the defendant failed to stop and has continued his act of trespass on the land the subject matter of this suit.
WHEREUPON the plaintiffs claim against the defendant as follows:-
(a) In favour of the 1st plaintiff a declaration that the plaintiff is the owner of a Statutory Right of Occupancy to that piece or parcel of land lying and situate at Iju Railway Station, Iju in the Ikeja Division of Lagos State known and referred to as Plot No. 14 in the Estate of Frederick Ephraim Williams which land is more particularly marked and delineated on a survey plan drawn by one E.A. Ogunbiyi, Esq. a licensed surveyor and annexed to a registered conveyance No. 75 at page 75 in volume 1638 n the Lands Registry in the office at Lagos.
(b) In favour of the 2nd plaintiff the sum of N50,000.00 (fifty thousand naira) being damages for trespass when the defendant by himself and by his agents, servants and workmen and privies went on the said land and removed the 2nd plaintiff’s beacons, divided the land into plots sold and continue to sell to various persons who have erected buildings on the said land.
(c) Order of Perpetual Injunction restraining the defendant his servants and/or agents and privies from entering upon or interfering any further with the land the subject matter of the suit.”
The appellants also filed an Amended Reply to the Statement of Defence of the respondent thus:-
The plaintiffs join issue with the defendant on his defence.
The plaintiffs deny each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 2- 8, 10 and 12-15 of the Statement of Defence and put the defendants to proof thereof.
In particular denial of the averments contained in paragraphs 2-8,10 and 11 of the Statement of Defence the plaintiffs state that the land, the subject matter of this suit, originally belonged to Dada Agunwa, Ige Egun Oniye and Oriyomi Balogun who conveyed same to one Frederick Ephraim Williams the father of the 1st plaintiff in this suit by a deed of conveyance and the said deed of conveyance together with the attached plan will be relied upon at the trial of this suit.
The plaintiff will inter alia further rely at the trial of this suit and in proof of their claims in this suit upon a composite plan No. JO/21/85 dated 21st June, 1985 drawn by one J. Olushola Ogunsanya Esq., licensed surveyor showing inter alia the extent of the plaintiffs’ said predecessor in title and also they area now being trespassed upon by the defendant.
The 2nd plaintiffs further in answer to the averments of the defendants in paragraphs 12 & 13, state that soon after their purchase of the portion of the 1st plaintiff’s land, the subject of this suit, they were put in possession until the intervention and trespass of the defendant the subject of this claim.
The plaintiffs thereupon repeat the averments as set out in their statement of claim.
The Statement of Defence of the Respondent is as follows:-
The defendant denies paragraphs 1,2,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13 and 14 of the Statement of Claim specifically and puts the plaintiffs to the strictest proof thereof.
The defendant admits paragraph 3 of the Statement of claim only to the extent that he is the head of Olorokun Family of Orile Agege but denies that he is the sole representative of the family.
The defendant avers that he is just one of the four Attorneys of the family with regard to the management control and alienation of the family land, part of which is now in dispute.
The defendant avers that his family:- i.e. the Olarokun family of Orile Agege is the owner of a parcel of land stretching from Irefu stream in Orile Agege to Abule Agba and Oko-Oba with the Lagos/Abeokuta Railway line as their boundary with Ibari family of Otta.
The defendant avers that he has always been on his family land as head of family and not on any other person’s land.
The defendant avers that he does not know the plaintiffs’ land talkless of going on their land. And that the plaintiffs have not filed any plan in this case to show their land in relation to the defendants’ land.
The defendant avers that his great grandfather Olarokun who migrated from Iga-Iloti in Otta, settled on this land very many years, cultivated and superintended (sic) the land throughout his life time without let or hindrance until his death when he left him (sic) surviving to the estate his five children: Osholes, Agbaosi, Adejiyan, Aiyelabi and Onumi, who inherited the vast area of land by Yoruba native law and custom. They cultivated managed and superintended (sic) the land without any hindrance from any source whatsoever until they all died leaving the land to their children who inherited same.
The defendant avers that the Olarokun family land is bonded on the four sides by Akinlabi family land of Orile Agege, Ikudoro and Ibari family land on Iju Station, Obawole and Iyanru families on other sides.
The defendant avers that his family never sold or leased any portion of his land to the first or second plaintiffs; and the alleged vendors of the plaintiffs are no members of Olarokun family.
The defendant avers that his ancestors who succeeded Olarokun to the estate had many customary tenants on the land such as, Gboyiki family, Sedimu Adeyemi family, Ogundele Samule Ogunjobi and Faleti families who paid and still pays tribute to Olaroku family annually; for the use of the land.
The defendant avers with specific reference to paragraph 4,5,6,7,8,9 and 10 that the said F.E. Williams had no sanguinary affinity with the defendant family and that he was a Sierra Leonean who settled and lived in Lagos and had nothing to do with the defendant’s family land in his lifetime.
The defendant avers that neither the 1st nor the 2nd plaintiff was in possession of any of his family land to his knowledge at any time and hitherto.
The defendant avers that paragraphs 11,12,13 and 14 denied specifically as false and mere fabrications from the plaintiffs’ imagination.
The defendant states that his family’s hold on the family land which has endured for over a century has never been challenged by the plaintiffs or their predecessors-in-title before now.
The defendant avers that he is not liable to the plaintiffs in the sum of N50,000.00 or in any sum at all, as he was never on his land.
WHEREFORE the defendants stated that the plaintiffs claim is speculative, frivolous and vexatious and should be dismissed with costs.”
The appellants called four witnesses in support of their claim, while the respondent gave evidence as D.W.1 and called eight other witnesses to establish his defence to the action. The trial Court dismissed all the claims of the appellants. As the appellants were dissatisfied with the judgment of that Court, they appealed to the Court below. In that Court, their appeal was allowed, but an order was made that the case be heard de novo, by another judge of the High Court of Lagos State sitting at its High Court at Ikeja. After a review of the evidence and the submissions of counsel, the reasons given for arriving at this conclusion per the judgment of Kalgo JCA (as he then was) and with which, M.M. Akanbi JCA (as he then was) and Coomassie JCA concurred, read thus:-
“There is amply (sic) evidence produced at the trial by both parties but the learned trial judge has failed to make specific findings of facts on the vital issues involved. In the circumstances, I am of the view that the appeal must be allowed on this score, I so do. But the facts and circumstances of this case are such, that in my respectful view, this Court cannot proceed to decide the case on the evidence before the trial Court. It is also my considered view, that if the parties are given the opportunity to relitigate on the matter, none of them will be wronged or prejudiced and no miscarriage of justice will be occasioned thereby. See Ayoola V. Adebayo (1969) 1 A.N.L.R. 154 at 162.”
As the appellants were again dissatisfied with the judgment and orders of the Court below, they lodged a further appeal to this Court. Pursuant thereto, they filed a Notice of Appeal containing five grounds of appeal which, without their particulars, are as follows:-
“1. The Court of Appeal misdirected themselves in law when they failed to make findings on the documentary and unchallenged oral evidence presented by the parties in this case.
The Court of Appeal misdirected themselves in law in failing to observe that Exhibit B a deed of conveyance made in 1911 and the possession of the land by the 1st plaintiff’s family as shown by the unchallenged evidence of 2nd P.W. confers title to the land in dispute on the plaintiffs.
The learned Justice of the Court of Appeal misdirected themselves in failing to observe that they were in good position to determine this case on the documentary evidence namely Exhibits A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H and the traditional evidence of the defendant without remitting the case to the High Court for trial de novo.
The Court of Appeal after holding that the finding of the High Court that the evidence of possession of the land in dispute as coming from the defendant is stronger than that of the plaintiffs is perverse, misdirected themselves in law when they failed to hold that evidence of possession adduced by the plaintiffs is stronger in view of the unchallenged evidence of 2nd P.W. and Exhibits F,G &H.
The learned Justices of the Court of Appeal erred in law when they directed this case to be remitted to the High Court for trial novo by another Judge.”
Subsequently, briefs or argument were filed and exchanged by the parties. The appellants filed a reply brief upon being served with the brief filed on behalf of the respondent. At the hearing before us, learned counsel for the parties adopted and placed reliance upon their respective briefs for the determination of this appeal. Both counsel also made oral submissions in support of the arguments in their briefs.
For the appellants, the issues identified for the determination in the appellants’ brief are:-
“1. Whether the retrial order made in the circumstances of this case was right.
Whether the Court of Appeal was in a good position to determine the case on the evidence on record.
Whether the plaintiffs proved their case?”
As the issues identified in the respondent’s brief filed on his behalf by his learned counsel are similar to those set down in the appellants’ brief, I do not consider it necessary to set them down in this judgment. I have also considered these issues in the light of the grounds of appeal filed by the appellants and found that they do properly arise from the grounds of appeal so filed. The merits of this appeal would therefore be considered on the basis of the issues reproduced above from the appellants’ brief. Before doing so, it is I think desirable to review the facts briefly.
The 1st appellants gave evidence to the effect that Fredrick Ephraim Williams was her father and that he died testate leaving a will. The certified true copy of the probate of the last will and testament of the said Fredrick Ephraim Williams who died on the 12th November 1918 was admitted as Exhibit ‘A’. She stated that though at the time of the death of her father she was very young, she later learnt that she inherited a landed property under the will. This landed property which is situated at Iju is part of his landed property covered by a Deed of Conveyance dated 10-3-1911, registered as No. 40 page 128 volume 72 in the Registry of Lands at Lagos, and was admitted and marked Exhibit ‘B’.
By virtue of this Exhibit ‘B’, it is evident that the land of which the land in dispute forms parts was by the indenture conveyed to the testator, of Palm Church Street in the town of Lagos on the tenth day of March 1911 by Dada Agunwa Wood Carver, Ige Egun Oniye, farmer all of Otta Road in the then British Colony of Southern Nigeria. It was stated also in Exhibit ‘B’ that the vendors were seised of the property in fee simple and in possession free from encumbrances. It is this property which is more particularly described in the plan attached to the indenture and distinguished with the colour red that was conveyed to the purchaser, namely, Fredrick Ephraim Williams in fee simple. The 1st appellant further testified that as the trustees and executors who were appointed to administer the property left by the testator were removed from acting in that capacity, the administration of the property was thereafter handed over to the Administrator-General and Public Trustee. Then by an Order of Court made on the 29th day of May 1961, the Administrator-General and Public Trustee apportioned the property amongst the children of the testator, Frederick Ephraim Williams. After the 1st appellant became vested with the property identified as Plot No. 14 in the Deed of Assent, Exhibit ‘D’ she directed her nephew, 3rd P.W. to look for a buyer. The said Plot No. 14 was eventually sold to the 2nd appellant.
The respondent also, in presenting his case, gave evidence in his own behalf and in addition, called eight other witnesses. Now in his own evidence, he started by asserting that he did not know the 1st appellant before this action was commenced against him. It is however his case that the entire land beginning from the stream of Erefu Orile Agege to Oko Ogbngbe, now known as Oko Oba belonged to his father. He however, said that he does not know the exact acreage of the land, but also referred to a Plan No. JO61A/76. This plan was not tendered during the trial and was therefore not admitted as an exhibit. DW1, continued with his evidence by stating who his boundarymen were with regard to the disputed land. His evidence and extent of the disputed land, which included its description, reads inter alia, thus:-
“My boundarymen are from Erefu Akinlabi family, little after that there is Ikorodu family, going further there is the Ibari family very near the railway line along Ifako. Going further there is Oba Wole family near Ojokoro there is Iyanru family coming back from there along Abeokuta Lagos Road we get Irolo Ilari Opa family after Ilari Opa we will get to Ekoro and then to Odo Erefu.”
The respondent then went to give evidence of how the land, presumably the disputed land, came to be in possession of his family and for which he is claiming its ownership. It is his case that his father who was a farmer and also a hunter in 1834 while on a hunting expedition came to a forest where no one had ever been. As he found no one there, he decided to settle there. He therefore built a hut there. His father, it is claimed lived there for many years without any trouble. It was whilst there that Olarokun married two wives, namely Efuntan and Shogegbemi. Efuntan had five children for him namely Osholesi, Agbaosi, Aiyelabi, Adesiyan and Onuni. But Shogegbemi did not have any issue. The respondent further stated that Agbaosi begat his own father, named Abudu Orowolo. He added that Osholesi had children and one of them named Lamidi Kosoko was also in Court. It is also his evidence that all the descendants of Olarokun are living in the land founded by ther grandfather and had built their own houses thereon. Their grandfather who also lived and died there, brought two idols from Otta, named Ale and Ogun which he worshipped and are still being worshipped to this date. His grandfather who died in 1870 was buried in the said land, which is in contention
The respondents also called as witnesses the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th and 9th defendant witnesses respectively. The 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th defence witnesses gave evidence that they are boundarymen to the land they claimed belonged to the family of the respondent.
The 6th, 7th, 8th and 9th defence witnesses gave evidence that they are customary tenants of the respondent. Usman Kasali, in the course of his evidence stated that he was born on the disputed land in the house built by his grandfather, who was a tenant of the respondent’s family through their grandfather. And under cross-examination, he said that about 12 years ago when he gave evidence, he was also given a piece of land by Chief Lemonu of Orile Agege who was then, the head of the Olarokun family.
In arguing the appeal, issues (1) and (2) were argued together. These are, whether the retrial order made by the Court below was right in the circumstances, and whether the Court below was in a good position to determine the case on the evidence on record. The thrust of the argument is the submission of their learned counsel in their brief and in his oral argument before us is that the Court of Appeal was in a good position to determine the appeal on the evidence on the printed record and the exhibits in Court. In this respect, learned counsel asked the Court to note that the appellants’ case rested mainly on documents, which were supported by evidence of possession. In addition, it is submitted that the trial Court and the Court below accepted the evidence of the appellants given through the P.W. 2, the surveyor who tendered Exhibit ‘F’, the survey plan that the identity of the land was established. It is also the contention of learned counsel for the appellants that the respondent failed entirely to lead evidence, which could have led the Court to uphold his case at the trial. The evidence given by the respondent consisted of a description of a vast area of land, which he claimed belonged to him by inheritance. Though he claimed that his grandfather founded the land in 1834, yet he admitted in his own evidence that he did not know the total acreage of the land. He had admitted that he had commissioned a survey plan and also what he referred to as a composite plan, none of these plans was tendered at trial. The evidence of the boundarymen he argued, cannot be of much assistance to him also. This is because their evidence would be relevant if the land to which they are boundarymen is ascertainable.
It is therefore the contention of learned counsel for the appellants that having regard to the evidence in the printed record and the documentary exhibit admitted, the court below could have determined the appeal. The order of retrial made by the court below, it is argued, is not apposite in the circumstances. In support of his submission, he referred to the following cases in the two briefs filed for the appellants; Ajadi V. Olanrewaju (1969) 1 ALL N.L.R 382 at 389; Okeowo V. Migilore (1979) 11 S.C.138 at 201; Ogbuokwuelu V. Umeanafunkwa (1994) 4 NWLR (pt.314) 676 at 713. In the brief prepared for the respondent by his learned counsel, Miss O.M. Lewis, the 1st and 2nd issues were similarly argued together as did the learned counsel for the appellants. The contention made for the respondent is to the effect that the order of retrial made by the Court below was made by that Court in the exercise of the discretionary power vested in the Court. This Court it is therefore submitted, should not interfere with the exercise of the discretion of the Court below unless this Court is satisfied that the exercise of that discretionary power was manifestly wrong, arbitrary reckless, injurious or contrary to justice. For this submission, the following cases were cited: University of Lagos V. Olaniyan (1985) 1 NWLR (pt. 1) 156; Imonikhe & Anor. V. A.G. Bendel State & Ors. (1992) 6 NWLR (pt. 248) 396 at 408. It is also argued for the respondent that this is a proper case for an order of retrial to be made. This is because the trial judge failed in his primary duty to make findings on issues joined on the pleadings. It is therefore argued for the respondent that the evidence is such that an Appellate Court cannot make its findings and come to a decision on all the relevant issues. For this submission, the following cases were brought to our attention: Awote V. Owodunni No. 2 2 NWLR (pt. 57) 366; Adeyemo V. Arokopo (1988) 2 NWLR (pt. 79) 703; Oko V. Ntukidem 1993 2 NWLR (pt. 274) 124 at 136-137.
Having regard to the argument of counsel and the issues under consideration, I think that, the question that must first be determined is whether the Court below could properly have determined the appeal before it on the printed record and the other documentary exhibits tendered in the course of the trial. Learned counsel for the appellants says yes, while learned counsel for the respondent has argued to the contrary. For the determination of who is right or wrong, I will refer first to the settled authorities on when an Appellate Court could determine a matter as had occurred in the instant appeal.
Thereafter I will refer to the pleadings and the evidence and which I have taken the precaution to refer to copiously earlier in this judgment. There can be no doubt that learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that it is trite principle of law that a Court of Appeal should be loathe to interfere with or reverse findings of fact made by a court of trial unless such findings are perverse. The principles for which a Court of Appeal must be wary of interfering with the findings of a trial court have received full consideration in this Court in Ebba V. Ogodo (1984) 1 SCNLR 372, where Eso JSC in the course of his judgment said at page 378, referring with approval to the English case of Watt or Thomas V. Thomas (1947) A.C. 484, continued thus:-
“…Indeed, it is the duty of the trial Court to assess witnesses, form impressions about them and evaluate their evidence in the light of the impression which the Court forms of them. That is one good reason why the Trial Court is named a ‘trial Court’ (and hence a Court of Appeal should attach the greatest weight to the opinion of the trial Judge) that has the duty to see and indeed, in this case, has seen the witnesses and also heard their evidence .Unless the trial Court has failed to make use of this singular advantage, and for that reason thereof the Court of Appeal finds that the decision is perverse, the Court of Appeal, whose opportunity is confined to printed record is obliged to, and must accord to the findings of fact, by the trial Court the greatest weight and due respect. That indeed is the division of labour, and a sensible one at that, between trial Court and the Appellate Court.”
At page 379, His Lordship continued thus:-
“But this division ends or rather does not exist, where the question does not affect the issue of credibility of witnesses’ in other words, the Court of Appeal itself will obviously be in as good a position as the trial Court, for in such a case, the trial Court has no advantage really over the Court of Appeal. For the Court of Appeal will be in a proper position to evaluate, as the trial Court the evidence which has been given in the case, for in such cases the matter in dispute has been completely narrowed down to inference that could be drawn from proved facts, without going the rigour of credibility of witnesses.
When we have this type of case, the Court of Appeal should not shrink from the talk of such evaluation or be inhibited thereupon, just because it is a Court of Appeal. See Benmax V. Austin Motor Co. Ltd. (1955) A.C. 370. See also Lion Buildings Ltd V. M.M. Shadipe (1976) 12 SC 135 as per Sir Udo Udoma, JSC at page 135.”
It is clear from the above quoted statement of principle with regard to when a Court of Appeal should in an appeal before it consider itself to be in as good a position as the trial Court to evaluate and resolve the questions raised in the appeal. It seems to me that in order to arrive at its decision, the Court of Appeal ought to ask itself primarily whether the questions raised in the appeal affected the issue of credibility of witnesses. It seems, having regard to the principles adumbrated above, that where the questions that fall to be determined do not raise the issue of credibility of witness, then the Court of Appeal has the duty of interfere with the discretion of the trial Court in order to determine the justice of the case between the parties. For further guidance of this, it is apposite to refer to page 381 of Ebba V. Ogodo (supra) where Kayode Eso JSC analysed the different situation that may confront an Appeal Court in the course of the determination of an appeal. It reads:-
“An Appeal Court in applying these principles should, I venture to suggest:-
(a) start with an attitude to the trial Court, as the only Court which has principally, the duty to make findings of fact from the evidence – oral and or documentary – before it, also that the trial Court is the court that has been specially suited, by its peculiar constitutional set-up and rules so to do. (The trial Judge sees the witnesses and has the exclusive advantage to observe their demeanour);
(b) then find out whether the conclusion which has been arrived at by the trial Court is justifiable when it is re-examined against the very premise and or the controversy vel non which formed the basis of the conclusion arrived at by the trial Court;
(c) where the conclusion is arrived at without any real controversy, e.g. in the case of documentary evidence, or where it does involve a controversy the controversy is limited only to number, complexity or contradiction or interpretation of the document or further where there is oral evidence but it involves merely an admission by the adversary or there is an unchallenged piece of oral evidence, the Court of Appeal should consider itself to be in as good a position as the trial Court, in so far as the evaluation of such evidence as aforesaid in this paragraph is concerned;
(d) where the decision is arrived at, after there has been an examination of a controversy (and this is the commonest aspect) as where the opposing parties produce witnesses in the case to contradict each other by oral evidence, then the Court of Appeal should appreciate that the following will be relevant:
(i) Credibility of witness based on demeanors of the witnesses only:- Here, the trial Court is the sole judge as the observation of the demeanor of the witnesses has to be peculiar and exclusive to the trial Court which advantage is not and can never be available to the appellate Court.
(ii) Credibility of witnesses based on factors other than demeanor:- The Court of Appeal should examine those factors which the trial Court examined as a result of which it made the inference which led to its finding and determine whether that trial Court has made use of its singular advantage of seeing and hearing the witnesses before making its finding especially having regard to the inference that could reasonably be made by a just and reasonable tribunal from the same factors.”
In the instant case, learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the question before the Court of Appeal is resolvable upon the documentary exhibits tendered and accepted by the trial Court by the appellants to prove the 1st appellant’s claim to the disputed land. In this respect, it must be borne in mind that the claim of the 1st appellant to the disputed land rests mainly on documentary exhibit.
SC. 135/1998