Sydney Dunu v. Chief Rasheed Kikelomo Gbadamosi (2023)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

ABUBAKAR SADIQ UMAR, JCA (Delivering the leading judgment)

This is an appeal against the judgment of the High Court of Lagos State, Ikeja Division (the lower court) delivered on the 28th day of May, 2012 Coram B. A. Oke-Lawal, J. in suit No: ID/1580/2007 wherein the lower court declared the title in respect of the land in dispute situate at No 5, John Christ Street, Tedi Village in Ojo Local Government Area of Lagos State in favour of the respondent herein.

The respondent as claimant at the lower court commenced the suit by way of writ of summons dated and filed together with the statement of claim on the 29th November, 2007 seeking the following reliefs:

1. A declaration of title to a customary and/or statutory right of occupancy in respect of all that piece or parcel of land situate, lying and being along John Christ Street, Tedi Village in the then Badagry Local Government (now) Ojo Local Government Area of Lagos State more particularly described and delineated on Survey Plan No: LU/LA/5045B/84 dated 10/10/84 and attached to the foot of certificate of occupancy registered as No: 75/75/2003 dated 18/02/2003 and also the deed of assignment registered as No: 75/75/2170 of 11/05/2007 in the register kept at the lands Registry, Alausa- Lagos
2. An order of perpetual injunction restraining the defendant, his agents, servants and/or privies from further committing acts of trespass on the claimants land.
3. An order awarding general damages in the sum of N7, 000,000.00 (seven million naira only) for trespass and N2,574,500.00k (two million, five hundred and seventy four thousand, five hundred naira only) as special damages against the defendant for acts of trespass on the land.

The appellant filed his amended statement of defence with counter-claim dated 15th March, 2011 and claimed against the respondent as follows:

1. The sum of N2,000,000.00 (two million naira) being cost of the special and general damages perpetuated by the claimant on the land with particulars as follows:

i. 442 bags of cement N750,000.00

ii. Batcher together with working tools N250,000.00

ii. The sum of N1,000,000.00 as general damages for trespass and disturbance of the workers at the site.

2. A declaration that the defendant/counter-claimant is the person entitled to the 2 plots of land situate at John Christ Street, Tedi Village, Ojo Local Government Area of Lagos State measuring approximately 1339.560 square meters and delineated in Survey Plan No: JOO/LS/920/2001.
3. A perpetual injunction restraining the claimant, his agents, servants, privies or anyone claiming under or through him from further trespass on the land.
4. Cost of this Action.

In response to the appellants statement of defence, the respondent filed an amended reply.

Trial commenced on the 7th October, 2010. The respondent called three witnesses, tendered exhibits A to P3 and closed his case on the 3rd of March, 2011. The appellant opened his case on the 23rd March, 2011, called four witnesses, tendered exhibits Q to Z9 and closed his case on the 18th Day of October, 2011.

The appellant and respondent filed their final written addresses on 1st December, 2011 and 18th January, 2012 respectively. The lower court thereafter delivered its judgment on the 28th day of May, 2012 wherein it granted the respondents claims and dismissed the entire claims of the appellant.

Being dissatisfied with the decision ofthe lower court, the appellant appealed to this court by an amended notice of appeal dated and filed 24th September, 2014. The amended notice of appeal contains seven (7) grounds of appeal upon which the appellant seeks to set aside the lower courts decision.

The appellant filed his brief of argument which was settled by C.J. Jiakponna, Esq. In the brief, counsel to the appellant formulated the following issues for the determination of this appeal to wit:

1. Whether in the light of the decision of the lower court, it can be said that the learned trial Judge did evaluate the evidence adduced by the parties
2. Whether the learned trial Judge did not err in law by declaring title to be vested in the claimant/respondent solely on the document, the certificate of occupancy, which belongs to another person who was not called as a witness in court.
3. Whether the learned trial Judge was right in bringing suo-motu an issue that was not canvassed in court and relying on same to arrive at a decision.
4. Whether the learned trial Judge gave fair hearing to the defendant/appellant by not recording some of the evidence adduced during thecross-examination of the witnesses of the claimant/respondent.
5. Whether the trial court was right against the background of the evidence adduced at the trial and all applicable law in awarding N2,524,500.00 and N1,000,000 respectively as special and general damages in favour of the claimant/respondent against the defendant/appellant.

The respondent filed his brief of argument. The respondents brief of argument was settled by Lekan Odunsin, Esq. Counsel to the respondent formulated three issues for the determination of this appeal in his brief of argument to wit:

1. Whether having regards to pleadings and evidence, the lower court properly directed itself and treated the case properly according to legal principle applicable in its decision and therefore the claimant entitled to judgment.
2. Whether the lower court suo-motu brought in evidence which were not canvassed during trial, contrary to ground 3 of the amended notice of appeal.
3. Whether cases are won on the number of witnesses called in a case matter.
4. Whether the claimant/respondent has possession of the subject land and better title against the defendants/appellants entry vietarmis on the subject land?

Counsel to the appellant also filed a reply on points of law dated 20th November, 2017 and filed on the 21st of November of 2017. I have given due consideration to the grounds of appeal, the issues distilled therefrom and the arguments put forward by counsel in their briefs and therefore framed two (2) issues which succinctly encompass all the issues raised by the appellant and upon which I shall determine this appeal thus:

1. Whether the lower court properly evaluated the facts and evidence placed before it by the parties before granting the reliefs in this matter as constituted?
2. Whether in the circumstance, the trial Judge was right when he held that the respondent is entitled to general and special damages?

Issue one

Whether the lower court properly evaluated the facts and evidence placed before it by the parties before granting the reliefs in this matter as constituted.

Submissions of counsel

Relying on the case of Amokomowo v. Andu (1985) 1 NWLR (Pt. 3) 530, the appellant submitted that the court must review all evidence adduced by parties to a suit and place them on an imaginary scale to determine the preponderance of evidence with the view to resolving the dispute. The appellant submitted that the respondent at trial did not call any witness to testify to the purchase of the land in dispute and also failed to call his predecessor-in-title, Mr. Toyin Abass to testify during trial. The appellant submitted that the respondent admitted that the land in dispute is at Tedi village but failed to prove that the land originally belonged to the Onigbanko family whom he claimed were the original owners of the land in dispute.

The appellant further submitted that the respondent tendered an unlodged survey plan which contained materially different measurement of the land in dispute. The appellant submitted that by the respondents survey plan, the land in dispute measures 1334.334sqm while in that of the appellant, the same land measures 1339.560sqm. It was also the submission of the appellant that the respondent, during trial testified that he did the foundation structure and fenced the land in dispute around but could not recall the date he began construction on the said land.

It was submitted by the appellant that during trial, he called the Chief of Tedi village and the head of the Abuje Chieftaincy Family, Chief Mukaila Kareem who in his testimony, traced the traditional root of the title to the land in dispute spanning about 300 years. The appellant further submitted that DW3, who investigated the land at Tedi Village and at the Surveyor-General’s Office also gave cogent testimony at trial. In his further submissions, the appellant argued that there was neither any structure nor building materials on the land in dispute when he took possession of it.

It was also the submission of the appellant that he tendered in evidence, his building plan, deed of assignment, Governors consent and the Lagos State Gazette which shows that the land in dispute belongs to Tedi Village. The appellant further contended that the lower court failed to properly evaluate all these documentary evidence and also failed to take cognizance of the discrepancies between the oral testimony and the documents exhibited by the respondent.

The appellant submitted that the respondent claimed that he bought the land in 1996 but the document oftitle which he tendered shows that the land was allocated to the respondents predecessor-in-title, Mr. Toyin Abass in 1998. The appellant therefore concluded that if Mr. Toyin Abass did not have title in 1996, then the respondents has failed to establish his root of title. The appellant relied on Adelaja v. Fatoki (1990) 2 NWLR (Pt. 131) 157.

The appellant submitted that the certificate of occupancy relied upon by the respondent which was registered in 2003, as well as his Deed of Assignment dated 2006 and the Governors Consent which was received in 2007, are all in the name of Toyin Abass and not of the respondent who claimed he bought the land in 1996. The appellant further submitted that the lower court failed to consider this material discrepancy in the oral and documentary evidence of the respondent and his witnesses.

The appellant submitted that the respondent failed to prove title to land by way of traditional history but that the appellant has been able to prove same through the testimony of the Chief of Tedi Village and in line with the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Anyafulu & Ors. v. Meka & Ors. (2014) 16 WRN 53; (2014) 2 MJSC (Pt. III) 88.

The appellant submitted that the respondent is a land speculator who goes about to grab land from rightful owners. The appellant further submitted that CW2, during cross-examination, could not describe the location of the land in dispute and also gave contradictory testimony which the court ought not to rely upon. The appellant cited the case of Okonkwo v. C.C.B Nig. Plc. (1997) 6 NWLR (Pt. 507) 42 at 67.

Still on the evaluation of evidence, the appellant submitted that the lower court concentrated more on the evidence of the respondent without giving due attention to the totality of evidence adduced by the appellant. The appellant further submitted that the lower court rather discredited the testimony of DW2, the Chief of Tedi village who gave uninterrupted narration of the traditional history of the land in dispute. The appellant therefore concluded that the lower court did not properly evaluate the evidence adduced by the appellant and urged this court to set aside the Judgment of the lower court.

In furtherance of his submissions, the appellant argued that the lower court erred in law when it vested title of the land in dispute on the respondent based on the challenged documentary evidence of a Certificate of Occupancy granted to Abass Toyin who was not called as a witness during trial. The appellant further argued that by the Certificate of Occupancy, the land in dispute is situate at Tedi Village and not Onigbanko village and that there is no connection between Tedi village and Onigbako village. The appellant concluded that the mere production of certificate of occupancy by the respondent should not entitle him to the land in dispute and that the Certificate of Occupancy so tendered is void. The appellant relied on Lawson v. Ajibulu (1997) 6 NWLR (Pt. 501) 13 at 31, Solomon & Ors. v. Mogaji & Ors. (1982) 11 S.C 1.

The appellant submitted that the land in dispute was acquired by the Lagos State Government but was subsequently returned to the Abuje family and thus a new root of title by grant was created by the government for the appellant. The appellant relied on the case of Yusuf v. Oyetunde (1998) 12 NWLR (Pt. 579) 483.

Contrary to the submissions of the appellant, the respondent argued that when he conducted searches at the Land Registry, it wasfound that the root of title originally belonged to the Onigbanko Family of Irede Chieftaincy Family of Ojo. The respondent further submitted that at the time he purchased the land in dispute from Mr. Toyin Abass, the process for the grant of certificate of occupancy to Mr. Toyin Abass had reached an advanced stage. The respondent submitted that he started construction on the said land between 1996 and 2002 before the appellant broke into the property and caused damage.

The respondent argued that the appellant was unable to lead any credible evidence in support of his submissions and that during cross-examination, the appellant admitted that the purchase receipt of the land in dispute was issued to him in the year 2000 but back dated to 1978.

In challenging the title of the appellant, the respondent submitted that the appellant at the trial, testified that the land information shows that the land in dispute belongs to Tedi under the Tedi Chieftaincy family but could not provide any evidence to support this claim. The respondent further submitted that DW2 and DW3, both appellants witnesses gave conflicting oral testimony during trial which ledthe lower court to adjudged them to be untruthful witnesses.

The respondent also submitted that the land in dispute was at a time acquired by the Lagos State Government thereby divesting both disputed primary grantors of any valid title. The respondent submitted that notwithstanding the Legal Notice No 13 of 1976 recognizing the Onigbanko Chieftaincy Family who sold the land to Mr. Toyin Abass, it was Mr. Toyin Abass who ratified the title with the Lagos State Government and thus a new root of title was established by exhibits C, J, K1 to K6.

The respondent submitted that the new root of title relied upon by the appellant, that is, exhibit W is a registrable instrument which has not been registered and that the lower court has held that exhibit W does not bestowed any title on either the Abuje Chieftaincy Family of Tedi village or anyone else. The respondent submitted that the exhibit C, that is, the Certificate of Occupancy relied upon by the respondent is a public document which was granted to Mr. Toyin Abass, the respondents Predecessor-in-title by the Lagos State Government, and it is thus admissible within the ambit of section 128(1) of the Evidence Act, 2011.

The respondent therefore further submitted that Mr. Toyin Abass need not be called as a witness to tender exhibit C. The respondent relied on the case of Aregbesola v. Oyinlola (2009) All FWLR (Pt. 472) 1147 CA, Ogbunyiya v. Okudo (1979) (6-9) S.C 32, 38-39.

The respondent submitted that the lower court duly evaluated the testimonies and evidence of both parties and urged this court to so hold.

Appellants reply

The appellant submitted that the extant appeal has been overtaken by event through the decision of this court in the case of Mukaila Kareem & Anor. v. Sheriff Bello & Chief Mutiu Kasali in appeal No. CA/L/826/2013. The appellant submitted that the parties in the present appeal are privies in the estate to the parties in CA/L/826/2013. The appellant further submitted that the issue of ownership of the land in dispute have been settled in CA/L/826/2013 in favour of Tedi Community from whom the appellant acquired his title and therefore concluded that the respondent is estopped and can no longer re-litigate the issue already decided against the family from whom he acquired his title.

Resolution of issue one

The contention of the appellant is that the lower court did not consider the entire testimony of witnesses viz a vis the documentary evidence presented by both parties at trial in arriving at its conclusion as contained in its judgment which declared the respondent as the owner of land in dispute. It is trite that evaluation of evidence comes in two forms; findings of fact based on the credibility of witnesses and findings based on the evaluation of evidence. See Ayorinde & Ors. v. Sogunro & Ors. (2013) 1 WRN 1; (2012) LPELR-7808(SC).

This court has been enjoined to be slow to differ from the findings of a lower court on the credibility of witnesses, as it was the lower court who watched their demeanour and so its conclusions must be accorded some respect. However, this court is in a good position as the lower court to evaluate evidence tendered by parties.

The respondent and the appellant at the lower court, filed statement of claim and counter-claim respectively. In view of these competing claims filed by both parties, the burden of proof should be ascribed to each party on the preponderance of evidence to show entitlement to the land indispute and that burden will be discharged on the balance of probabilities as required by section 131-134 of the Evidence Act, 2011.

The Supreme Court has held in plethora of cases that there are five ways to prove title to land, which are: by traditional evidence; by production of documents of title; acts of ownership extending over a sufficient length of time, numerous and positive enough to warrant the inference that the person is the true owner; acts of long possession and enjoyment of the land; and by proof of possession of connected or adjacent land in circumstances rendering it probable that the owner of such connected or adjacent land would in addition be the owner of the land in dispute. See Idundun v. Okumagba (2000) 20 WRN 127; (1976) 9-10 S.C 227, Orlu v. Gogo Abite (2010) 1 S.C (Pt. 2) 1.

The appellant primarily traced his root of title to the Abuje Family of Tedi while the respondent maintained the position that his root of title was originally from the Onigbanko Family of Onigbanko village. It is not in contention that the governments acquisition of the land in dispute has already divested either the Abuje family or the Onigbanko family of titleto the said land. The Supreme Court in the case of Yusuf v. Oyetunde & Ors. (1998) 12 NWLR (Pt. 579) 483 at 493 held that once there is a compulsory acquisition of land, the title of the former owner becomes extinguished by reason of the acquisition and when the acquired land or part of it is returned, a new title by grant will be created.

In light of the foregoing, both parties in this appeal safely rested the proof of their entitlement to the land in dispute majorly on the production of title documents. It is trite law that the best evidence of the contents of a document is the production of that document. See Fagbenro v. Arobadi & Ors. (2006) 19 WRN 1; (2006) LPELR – 1227 (SC). See also Jiaza v. Bamgbose (1999) 7 NWLR (Pt. 610) 182 where the Supreme Court held that a party who relies on a document in proof of his title to land must tender the documents in evidence as extrinsic evidence of its content is not admissible in evidence.

The appellant tendered and relied on exhibit R, Land Information Certificate from Lagos State Government dated 10/3/11 to the appellant; exhibit R1, certified true copy of Survey Plan of the appellant dated 10/3/11; exhibit U, aletter from Lagos State dated 29/2/08 to the appellant that the proposed deed of assignment has been approved by the Governor; exhibit V, a memorandum of deed of assignment dated 11/3/08 between representatives of the Abuje family and the appellant; exhibit W, the certified true copy of Lagos State of Nigeria Official Gazette dated 28/3/96, among other exhibits.

The respondent relied on exhibit C, the certified true copy of Certificate of Occupancy dated 18/2/03 and registered as No 75 at Page 75 in Volume 2003; exhibits D1-D3, photographs showing a gate, land with blocks on it and foundation of a building; exhibit G, a letter dated 22/4/2010 from the Lagos State Government to the respondent stating that his survey plan is lodged; exhibit H, the certified true copy of Deed of Assignment dated 11/5/2006 and registered as No 75 on page 75 in volume 2170 between the respondent and Mr. Toyin Abass; exhibit K4, letter from Lagos State Government to Mr. Toyin Abass dated 19/8/97 stating that his application for the ratification of his holding at Tedi village covering an area of 13334.334 sq. meters in survey plan dated 10/10/84 has been approved by theGovernor; exhibit K7, letter dated 25/2/98 from Lagos State Government to Mr. Toyin Abass allocating land at John Chris Street, Tedi Village to him, among other exhibits.

I have considered the facts and the various documentary evidence presented by both parties, it is my view that the root of title upon which the appellant is claiming his entitlement to the land in dispute is exhibit W, the certified true copy of the Lagos State Official Gazette dated 28/3/96 which contains in its schedule, portions of land excluded from acquisition.

It has been contended by the respondent at the lower court that exhibit W is a registrable instrument by virtue of section 15 of Land Instrument Registration Law of Lagos State and that exhibit W is not registered and thus remains ineffectual until it is registered. I have considered this exhibit W and there is nothing therein that shows that either the appellant or the Abuje Family were granted the land in dispute after the compulsory acquisition by the Lagos State Government. Indeed the appellant did not tender any document to establish his root of title. It is the duty of court to act on credible evidence before it, where evidence is weightless in establishing fact, the court must attach no value to it. See Asaa v. Ojah (2015) LPELR-24278(CA), State v. Collins Ojo Aibangbee (1988) 3 NWLR (Pt. 84) 548.

The respondent relied primarily on exhibit C, the certified true copy of Certificate of Occupancy dated 18th February, 2003 and granted to Mr. Toyin Abass, the respondents predecessor-in-title by the Lagos State Government, among other documents which unassailably point at Mr. Toyin Abass as the holder of the title to the land in dispute after its acquisition by the Government and subsequent ratification. It is the law that a grant of statutory right of occupancy extinguishes all other existing right to land. This is clear from the provision of the Land Use Act as contained in section 5(2) which provides that:

Upon the grant of a statutory right of occupancy under the provisions of subsection (1) of this section all existing rights to the use and occupation of the land which is the subject of the statutory right of occupancy shall be extinguished.”

Quite apart from the statutory grant to the respondents predecessor-in-title asevinced by exhibit C, it is apparent from exhibit K4, a letter from the Lagos State Government to Mr. Toyin Abass dated 19th August, 1997 which shows that Mr. Abass application for the ratification of his holding of the land in dispute at Tedi village covering an area of 13334.334 sq. meters in survey plan dated 10/10/84 has been approved by the Governor. Also, exhibit K7, a letter dated 25th February, 1998 from the Lagos State Government which shows that the Lagos State Government has allocated the land in dispute to Mr. Abass reveals that indeed, the respondents predecessor-in-title had a valid root of title.

It is my view therefore from the avalanche of evidence tendered by the respondent, specifically exhibits C, K4 and K7, it is without doubt that the respondent has been able to establish that his predecessor-in-title has genuine title and his capable of transferring same to another.

It therefore follows that by exhibit H, the certified true copy of Deed of Assignment dated 11/5/2006 and registered as No 75 on page 75 in volume 2170 between the respondent and Mr. Toyin Abass, the title to the land in dispute has been validly assigned to the respondent.

It is trite that no defective document of title to land can displace a valid one and where a party has satisfied the court that the documents of title to land he holds are valid and effectual as against the defective documents in the hands of the other party, the party with valid documents is entitled to be declared owner of the land in dispute. See Agbonifo v. Aiwereoba & Anor. (1988) 1 NWLR (Pt.70) 325, Ekpemupolo & Ors. v. Edremoda & Ors. (2009) 32 WRN 1; (2009) LPELR-1089(SC). In Madaki & Ors. v. Kingham (2015) LPELR- 25696 (CA), this court per Georgewill, JCA held that:

Where a plaintiff has been able to satisfy the court that the documents of title he holds are genuine, valid and effectual and the identity of land covered by it is established or not in dispute, he is entitled to be declared the owner.”

Before I conclude on this issue, the appellant in his reply submitted that the instant appeal has been overtaken by event through the decision of this court in appeal No. CA/L/826/2013. The appellant however failed to supply any evidence that will assist this court to act on the said decision in appeal No.CA/L/826/2013. The law is clear that no court is empowered to make reference to any piece of evidence or document which has not been properly and formally placed before it in the course of reaching its decision in a case. See Wassah & Ors. v. Kara & Ors. (2014) LPELR-24212(SC), Oranika v. State (2018) LPELR- 45481 (CA).

From the foregoing, it is my considered view that the respondent has been able to prove his title to the land in dispute and therefore entitled to be declared the owner of the land in dispute situate at No. 5, John Christ Street, Tedi Village. This issue is hereby resolved in favour of the respondent.

Issue two

Whether in the circumstance, the trial Judge was right when he held that the respondent is entitled to general and special damages?

The appellant relied on Oluwi v. Eniola (1967) NMLR 339 at 340 to submit that a claim for trespass is not dependent on a declaration of title because trespass is an injury to possessory right, therefore the proper claimant for trespass is the person who is in possession of the land at the time of the trespass.

The appellant submitted that the respondent failed to prove that he wasin exclusive possession of the land in dispute as at the time the appellant entered into the land and that the respondent could not give specific dates of when he began to work on the land. The appellant also submitted that the respondents witnesses, CW2 and CW3 only testified to the work they did on the land but could not give description of the particular land they worked on and also failed to give any evidence of trespass or any indication that they were forced out of the land by the appellant.

Relying on the Dumez v. Ogboli (1972) 3 S.C 196, the appellant submitted that a claim of special damages must be strictly proved but the respondent has failed to prove his title to land and other claims itemized and pleaded. The appellant therefore urged this honourable court to set aside the judgment of the lower court.

In opposition to the arguments of the appellant, the respondent submitted that the lower court gave judgment in favour of the respondent because he had proved his title to land through production of documents, acts of ownership and presentation of credible witnesses. The respondent further submitted that the slightest act of possessionentitles a claimant who has better title to land to judgment in a claim of trespass against a defendant who cannot show better title. The respondent relied on Amakor v. Obiefuna (1974) 3S.C 67.

The respondent submitted that by his pleadings and evidence, he has successfully shown that he is entitled to specific damages in the sum of N2, 574, 500 and the sum of N1,000,000 as general damages as awarded by the lower court. The respondent in conclusion urged this court to dismiss the appeal for lacking in merit.

Resolution of issue two

The respondent in his statement of claim had claimed specific and general damages which is rooted in the wrongful invasion of the land in dispute by the appellant. Wrongful invasion of land or trespass to land is the entry into the land of another by a person not authorized. It should therefore be noted that a claim of trespass to land is hinged upon the right to exclusive possession of land allegedly trespassed. See Oriorio & Ors. v. Osain & Ors. (2012) 45 WRN 1; (2012) LPELR- 7809 (SC).

Having established in the first issue that the respondent is entitled to declaration of title to land in dispute. It is my view fromthe totality of facts and evidence in support as can be gleaned from the records before this court, the appellant entered the respondents land in 2002, an act which has resulted in the respondent been kept away from his land for many years. Exhibits D1-D3 which are photographs of the respondents construction on the land reveal that the appellant did not invade a bare land but a land already in possession by another.

Also, the unshaken testimonies of the respondent and CW2 reveal that while the appellant in the company of some boys entered upon the land in dispute, they carted away with leftover of materials used for construction and damaged the existing structure on the land. These testimonies corroborates the content of exhibit K3, a letter from the respondent dated 6/9/2002 to the Area Commander Area E, Festac Town on the demolition of the foundations of eleven shops and fence on the land in dispute.

The law is well defined with respect to how damages are proved in court. General damages can be inferred as it flows from the wrong committed by the defendant and thus need to be pleaded or proved, However, special damages must bespecifically pleaded and strictly proved in evidence. See Iwuagwu & Ors. v. Uzoma (2014) LPELR-23781(CA). In Onyiorah v. Onyiorah & Anor. (2019) LPELR- 49096 (SC), the Supreme Court per Rhodes-Vivours, JSC held thus:

Special damages must be specially pleaded and strictly proved by the claimant. To succeed in a claim for special damages, the claimant must plead the special damages and give necessary particulars and adduce credible evidence in support. The claimant must satisfy the court as to how the sum claimed as special damages was quantified.”

It is my view that the respondent having pleaded special damages in his statement of claim (see page 4 of the record) and has sufficiently furnished material evidence to prove same, this court will therefore not deviate from the holding of the lower court that the respondent is entitled to special damages in the sum of N2, 524, 500 (two million, five hundred and twenty-four thousand, five hundred naira only). I also abide by the quantum of general damages already awarded by the lower court in favour of the respondent.

On the whole, I hold that this appeal is unmeritorious and it is hereby dismissed. Accordingly, the judgment of the lower court Coram

B. A. Oke-Lawal J., delivered on the 28th day of May, 2012 in suit No: ID/1580/2007 is hereby affirmed.

Parties shall bear their cost.

---

Other Citation: (2023) 32 E-WRN / 01 (CA)