Rabiatu Adebayo & Ors V. Rasheed Shogo (2005)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

PATS-ACHOLONU, J.S.C.

The dispute over a land or incidences of land ownership in the history of Nigerian jurisprudence and literature in land law, has been largely the cause of anxieties and stress and many have gone to the grave prematurely in battling over land matters, some no more than inanities.

The appellants had instituted an action in the High Court at Offa in Kwara State and claimed a declaration that they are part owners of shops/stores situate at Adeleke Road Owode Market, Offa per the stripes system of inheritance, and also an order of accounts. Their case is that the land was the property of their father, one Pa Williams and that they the appellants, the respondent’s mother and his grand mother all contributed money for the erection of the structure therein. They averred that they delegated the respondent to supervise the building and thereafter collect rents from the shops but the respondent was collecting the rent for himself only.

The respondent replicando said that the land on which the shop/store was built was bought by his mother one Alhaja Salimato Shogo with a financial assistance of her husband, Mr. Bello Shogo. In order to induce one Pa Salami, the appellants’ father to return home to Offa, a portion of that land was given to him by Alhaja Shogo, but when Salami could not complete the house due to impecuniosity and later abandoned it, the structure was given to Madam Shogo’s brother then living in Kano. He said that since the completion of that shop, the said Alhaja had continued to collect rents for that building.

In the High Court, judgment was given to the appellants but on appeal to the Court of Appeal, the judgment of the High Court was reversed and set aside. Not happy with the judgment of the Court of Appeal, the appellants appealed to this court and framed three issues. In the court, they decided to abandon issue No.1 and relied on two issues left.

The two issues are:

1. Whether the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal could validly substitute their own views as to the findings of facts made by the learned trial Judge.
2. Whether the statement of claim filed by the plaintiffs was adequate for their case.

The main issue of the respondent in the case is:

Whether the Court of Appeal was right to have allowed respondent’s appeal and dismissed appellants’ claims before the trial court.

I believe that in doing justice to this case, I shall discuss the two issues made out by the appellants together. For a case involving a declaration of ownership or title to land whether whole and entire or part ownership, it is essential that a ground work of how the land came into the ownership or possession of the predecessors of the claimants be clearly stated. When there is no pleading or averment on that, it is generally difficult to see how the burden of proof can be satisfactorily explained. The pleading of the appellants is the shortest I have ever seen and the facts to prove the case are very scanty to say the least. It is important to know that facts are the bedrock – nay the fountain head of law. The court does not apply law in a nebulous clime. In other words, it has to scrupulously subject all the facts pleaded and elicited in the evidence to merciless scrutiny to determine which party’s case preponderates over the other. The facts are the tools in the hands of a great advocate.

In its judgment, the Court of Appeal per Onnoghen, JCA held thus;

“The learned trial Judge only evaluated the evidence of the respondents and did not even consider the challenge to the root of title of Pa Salami in his judgment. That apart, it is the law that parties and the court are bound by the pleadings and evidence not pleaded go to no issue. It is strange when the court found at page 107 of the record as follows:

The above three witnesses for the plaintiff that is PW1, PW2 and PW4 and especially PW1 and PW4 are very close relations of late Pa Salami who were presumed to have lived with Pa Salami during his life time. One can reasonably believe that by this close relationship, the deceased would have talked or indicated to them what belonged to him and what did not belong to him among his properties before he died.”

It is so difficult for me to take the appellants seriously when they could not satisfactorily explain how their father got the land in the first place. I fail to understand how the terse and sparsely worded pleadings could be a foundation for sufficient facts that would ground or gravitate their case when they are seeking for declaratory reliefs and account of the monies realized from the claim of delegation to collect rentals. On the contrary, the respondent in this case comparatively speaking fairly profuse in his pleadings and naturally the evidence elicited or adduced ought generally to shore up considerably the material facts pleaded. The weight or substantiality of evidence is what is considered by the court in its adjudication process.

The nature of the appellant’s case as presented in the court of first instance with the dearth of facts might invite a temptation to improvise the appellant’s case at the hearing by giving evidence of material facts not pleaded. Consider for example, the evidence of PW1, the mother of the appellants and the grand mother of the respondent she said: