Source: https://www.independent.ng/obueke-ors-v-nnamchi-ors-if-trial-courts-decision-is-sound-appellate-court-is-bound/
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 03:38:44+00:00

Document:
Late Mr. Anselem Obueke, (father to the 1st Defendant/Appellant and husband of the 2nd Defendant/Appellant) bought his interest in the disputed land from the late John Egbo by a deed of lease dated the 19th July, 1963 and registered as No. 86 at page 86 in volume 849 of the lands registry in the office at Enugu.
The late John Wenata Egbo entered into oral contract with the family of the respondents for the development of Achara Layout.
He was given a parcel of land as part of his fees for his services. A dispute later arose between the said John Wenata Egbo and the respondents over the extent of the area granted to him.
However in 1965, the respondent took out the suit with No. E/97/65 against John Wenata Egbo, claiming that he exceeded the area granted him for his services.
The court held as invalid and voided the evidence of Mr. Egbo in respect of a deed of lease dated 20th of October 1967 and registered as No. 31 at page 31 in volume 332 of the Lands Registry Enugu.
The respondent subsequently sued the appellants who had been on the land for over 16years for trespass, claiming injunction and damages.
The trial High Court, by a judgment dated 24th June, 1997, held the appellants liable for trespass and granted the respondents N5, 000 for damages and a conditional injunction against the appellants in favour of the respondents.
The appellants, being dissatisfied with the judgment, appealed to the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and the appellants, still dissatisfied, appealed to the Supreme Court.
1. Did Exhibit “A” tendered by the respondents in evidence form part of the record of proceedings properly before the Court of Appeal and thereby relevant to the case of the appellants? If the answer is in the affirmative, what was the effect of its exclusion to the appellants’ appeal?
2. Were the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal right in holding that the limitation of time does not apply in trespass?
3. Whether the judgment directing the defendants/appellants to attorn rent to the plaintiff/respondents and acknowledge them as their landlords within 30 days is a proper order to make taking into consideration the claim of the plaintiff/respondents without hearing the parties.
1. What is the evidential value of Exhibit A, i.e., the subsisting judgment of Honourable Justice P.K. Nwokedi delivered in suit No. E/97/65 between the respondents and the appellants’ predecessor-in-title with the respect to the suit.
2. Whether giving the facts and circumstances of this case, does limitation of time apply against the respondents in an action for trespass?
3. Whether the judgment directing the defendants/appellants to attorn rent to the plaintiff/ respondents and acknowledge them as landlords within 30 days was the proper order to make given the evidence led, and the reliefs claimed under Order 25 Rule 6 of Anambra State High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 1991 applicable to Enugu State.
Arguing on the issue (1) raised, counsel to the appellants contended that an examination of Exhibit A will reveal that the property in dispute was lawfully granted to late John Wenata Egbo; the grants to the appellants’ predecessor-in-title, as the judge found, was not evidenced as contained in the amended statement of claim that in 1957, John Wenata Egbo entered the land without the consent of the Umuaniona.
There was also evidence that the youths of Umuaniona took John Wenata Egbo and showed him a portion of the land in consideration of his services in laying out Okwe-Eghe land.
He said what was in dispute was whether Exhibit “A” deprived Mr John Wenata Egbo the right to possess that part of Okwe-Eghe land granted him by the plaintiffs/respondents in consideration of his services rendered to the plaintiff/respondents’ community in surveying and tarring the roads in the privy layout.
He further argued that it must be noted that Exhibit “A” did not state the part of Okwe-Eghe land that was not granted to John Wenata Egbo; that this only voided the lease not the parcel granted by Mr. John Wenata Egbo.
Counsel to the appellants continued that Exhibit “D”, the deed of lease in which John Wenata Egbo granted the original defendant, the subject matter of this dispute, is not based on the voided deed of the lease.
He insisted that the deed of lease in Exhibit “A” is valid by virtue of the land Use Decree, and that if the trial court had considered the evidence of both parties properly and judiciously, it would have found that the plaintiffs/respondents did not establish any case of trespass against the defendants/appellants.
He said since the judgment in Exhibit “A” formed part of the record of proceedings properly before the Court of Appeal that court was bound to look into it and also the facts in exhibits pleaded notwithstanding that the facts were not independently pleaded.
He referred to Braimoh Babatunde Akinola v. Vice-Chancellor University of Ilorin (2004) 11 NWLR (pt.585) 616; Ogidi v. State 1 S.C. (pt.1) 98, ( 2005) 5 NWLR (Pt.918) 286; Agbisi v. Ebikerefe (1997) 4 NWLR (Pt.502).
Counsel went on to submit that the court failed to consider the improper evaluation of evidence of the trial court upon which the erroneous influence of the trial court would have been seen.
Counsel to the Respondents contended that it was wrong, as put forward by the appellants, that Exhibit “A” will reveal that the property in dispute was lawfully granted to late John Wnata Egbo, the grants of the appellants’ predecessor-in-title.
He said that the trial judge in Exihibit A found that initially there was an agreement to grant a portion of “Okwe-Egbe” land but that the agreement was not consummated in that the defendants did not make any payment to consummate the grant and also did not perform the customary rite of killing of a goat to complete the transaction; and that it is trite that by virtue of Section 132 of the Evidence Act, Exhibit A speaks for itself.
He submitted that in interpreting a document or judgment it is the law that the document or judgment must be read as a whole and interpret in light with effort being made to achieve harmony among the parts; and that an examination of Exhibit A shows that the judgment avoided all and any purported grant to John Wenata Egbo from whom the appellants derived title.
He held that the appellant cannot seriously be claiming any interest in “Okwe-Eghe” land represented in plan No.GA/331/55 when the interest therefore had been nullified in Exhibit A.
He cited UAC v. Macfoy (1961) 3 NMLR 1405. The learned counsel for the respondents said the evaluation of evidence and ascription of probative value is the primary function of the trial court and the appellate court will not interfere as in this case when there was no perversity and the findings supported by the evidence on ground.
He cited Agbakoba v. INEC (2008) 12 S.C.(Pt.111) 171; (2009) All FWLR (Pt.462) 1037; Adimora V. Ajufo (1988) 6 S.C. and others.
In the light of the submissions of counsel above stated, it is seen that the appellants and counsel were not impressed with either the summation of the evidence by the learned trial judge or his evaluation of what was before him.
The respondents’ counsel disagreeing put forward a position showing he acquitted himself creditably and within the scope of what had been proffered in evidence particularly the version of evidence of the appellants who were in the defense at the court trial.
From the stamp and affirmation of the Court of Appeal made after due consideration of the evaluation and finding of the trial court, it is difficult for me to deviate or even attempt to upset what those two courts below have done in keeping with the well-settled principles that evaluation of evidence and ascription of probative value are within the province and primary function of the trial court and so it is easy to understand that in a situation such as the present where the trial court creditably carried out this assignment, the Court of Appeal was right in not interfering since no perversity was found nearby.
Also, the decision arrived at from the evidence laid, the Court of Appeal rightly came to its conclusion in support of what the trial court did, again properly guided by laid down principles.
I place reliance on Agbakoba v. INEC (2008) 12 S.C. (Pt.111) 171; (2009) ALL FWLR (Pt.462) 1037; Amiora v. Ajufo (1988) 6 S.C. (Reprint) 113; ( 1988) 3 NWLR (Pt.80) 1; Osuji v Ekeocha (2009) 6-7 (Pt.11) (2009) All FWLR (Pt.490) 614.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 V. 
 v. 
 v.