Princewill Eyo Asuquo & Ors. V. Mrs. Grace Godfrey Eyo & Anor (2013)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

UZO I. NDUKWE-ANYANWU, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

This an Appeal against the Ruling of the High Court of Akwa Ibom State sitting at Uyo delivered on the 24th day of February, 2009.

The Respondents as Plaintiff sued the Appellants/Defendants in the Court below and claimed as follows:

“(a) An order of possession of the bungalow building of late Godfrey Eyo in Afaha Etok Ibesikpo in Ibesikpo Asutan Local Government Area covered by survey plan No.UUCR/1110/78 of 5th March, 1978 and building plan No.UYAPA/B:352/79.

(b) An order of perpetual injunction restraining the Defendants, their agent, privies and persons acting through them or on their instructions from interfering in any manner however or disturbing the Plaintiffs’ possession of the bungalow building of late Godfrey Eyo at Afaha Etok Ibesikpo hereinbefore described.

(c) N1,000,000.00 (One Million Naira) damages.”

The Respondents were forcefully removed from the bungalow which they claimed was built by their husband/father of the 1st & 2nd Respondents respectively. The deceased had bought the land, surveyed it, registered his building plan and built a bungalow. The deceased lived therein with his immediate family and his parents until his death. Soon after his death, his family was forcefully removed by the Defendant/Appellants.

It was on this premise that this action was brought to reclaim the bungalow. The Respondents called one witness, tendered documents and closed their case. The Appellants opened their case, called their first witness and applied to tender receipts of purchase of the land, the subject matter of this case. It is the objection by the Respondents’ Counsel to the tendering of receipts of purchase of various plots of land that gave rise to this appeal.

The Appellants being dissatisfied with the ruling filed their Notice and two Grounds of Appeal on the 4th March, 2009. The Appellants brief was filed on 12th October, 2011 but deemed properly filed and served on 3rd October, 2012.

The Appellants articulated two issues for determination as follows:

“1. Whether the learned trial Judge was right in holding that the documents elegantly pleaded as receipts of the transaction between their Vendors and Purchasers as expressed thereon and sought to be tendered as such can be rejected simply because the said documents were not headed “RECEIPT”.

2. Whether the learned trial Judge rightly distinguished the case of ABU VS. KUYAGANA (2001) 4 WRN 113 from the present case to warrant the ruling on the objection of the Respondents on record.”

I shall be using the issues as articulated by the Appellants in the determination of this appeal. However, I will deal with the two issues together.

Learned Counsel for the Appellants submitted that the learned trial Judge erred in law when she rejected the documents sought to be tendered by PW1 on the ground that the documents were not stamped and stamp duty paid on them.

In rejecting the documents, the trial Judge held