#JustDecided - Latest Judgement, Court of Appeal OMAC OILS NIG LTD. & ORS V ELDER SAMSON OLUSHOLA EGBADEYI & ANOR Legalpedia Electronic Citation: LER[2014] CA/L/735M/2009 AREAS OF LAW: LAND LAW, LAW OF EVIDENCE, WORDS AND PHRASES SUMMARY OF FACTS The Plaintiffs/Respondents commenced the suit at the trial Court claiming a declarative order as persons entitled to statutory right of Occupancy of a parcel of land situated at Onilekere Street, Agege, Agege Local Government Area, Lagos State, and an injunction restraining the Defendants from further acts of trespass and damages. The Defendants/Appellants counter claimed against the Plaintiffs/Respondents but the court dismissed the counter claim. Aggrieved, the Defendants/Appellants has appealed to the Appeal Court. HELD Appeal dismissed ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION Whether the discrepancy in the two receipts, Exhibits P1 and P7 both having the same number and date and claimed to have been issued at different times are not sufficient evidence of fraud. Whether in the absence of any clear evidence as to who was the head of Moshesha family when the Deed of Lease was granted and / or executed by all the members of Moshesha family to the 2ndAppellant, the Deed of Lease can be regarded as void. Whether by virtue of Exhibits P1 and P9 above, the lower court could safely and reasonable confer title to the land in dispute on the Respondent without propping up their claim to title by other evidence recognised by law. Whether Exhibit P9 is not a document made in anticipation of this suit contrary to Section 91 (3) of the Evidence Act so much so that the placing of reliance on it has not occasioned a miscarriage of justice. Whether the judgment of the lower court found valuable support from the available evidence on record. RATIONES: CONTRADICTION – DEFINITION OF CONTRADICTION “The word contradiction comes from two latin words – Contra, which means opposite, and dicere, which means to say so. In ordinary parlance, to contradict is to speak or affirm the contrary. Hence in the law of evidence, a piece of evidence is contradictory to another when it asserts or affirms otherwise, and not necessarily when there are some minor discrepancies in, say details between them.” See the case ofOgoala V State (1991) 3 SCNJ 61 and Ayo Gabriel V The State (1989) 12 S.C.N.J 33 at 42”. PER. Y. B. NIMPAR, JCA WITNESSES - A PARTY IS NOT UNDER ANY OBLIGATION TO CALL A PARTICULAR NUMBER OF WITNESSES ‘‘A party is not under an obligation to call a particular number of witnesses as long as he proves his case by evidence.’’PER. Y.B. NIMPAR, JCA DEED OF ASSIGNMENT- A DEED OF LEASE NOT EXECUTED BY HEAD OF THE FAMILY IS VOID AB INITIO ‘‘The deed of lease not executed by head of family is therefore void ab initio.’’ PER. Y. B. NIMPAR, JCA FAMILY LAND- FAMILY LAND CANNOT BE SOLD WITHOUT THE HEAD OF THE FAMILY ‘‘Family land cannot be sold without head of family.’’PER. Y.B. NIMPAR , JCA EVIDENCE- PARTIES DO NOT PLEAD EVIDENCE BUT FACTS ‘‘The court was duty bound to give the document its value, which it did by voiding it. It is not a matter of pleading, after-all a party does not plead evidence but facts.’’PER. Y.B. NIMPAR , JCA EQUITABLE TITLE - PAYMENT OF PURCHASE PRICE WITH POSSESSION CONFERS EQUITABLE TITLE ON THE PURCHASER ‘‘It is also settled now that the payment of purchase price coupled with being put in possession confers equitable title which enables a purchaser in possession to call for a document of title’’PER. Y.B. NIMPAR JCA ADMISSIBILITY OF STATEMENT- FOR A STATEMENT TO BE INADMISSIBLE UNDER SECTION 91(3) OF THE EVIDENCE ACT IT MUST BE MADE BY A PERSON INTERESTED. ‘‘Therefore the two main conditions stipulated under Section 91(3) is that for a statement to be rendered inadmissible under this section it must be made by a person interested.And when proceedings are pending or anticipated involving a dispute as to any fact which the statement might tend to establish.The provision bars the admissibility of documents caught by the two conditions given in the provision. A party opposing must establish the two conditions. The two conditions must go together and these are: a. A person interested. b. When proceedings were pending or anticipated.’’PER. Y.B. NIMPAR JCA INTERFERENCE WITH FINDINGS OF FACT - AN APPELLATE COURT WILL NOT INTERFERE WITH FINDINGS OF FACT BY A TRIAL COURT THAT IS SUPPORTED WITH EVIDENCE. ‘‘An appellate court would not interfere with findings of facts that are supported by evidence before it. This duty was done by the trial Judge, the conclusion cannot be faulted and therefore cannot be interfered with, see the case of Bunge V Gov. Rivers State &Ors (2000) 12 NWLR (Pt 995) 573.’’ PER. Y.B. NIMPAR JCA EQUITIES- WHEN EQUITIES ARE THE SAME AND COMPETING, THE FIRST IN TIME PREVAILS. ‘‘Therefore when equities are the same and competing, the first in time prevails.’’PER. Y.B. NIMPAR, JCA STATUTE REFERRED TO Evidence Act To Have Access To Over 12,000 Case Summaries on any of your device Click Here legalpediaresources/
Posted on: Mon, 15 Dec 2014 16:30:01 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015