AJUWA & ORS. V. ODILI
| Pages | 1130-1150 |
1130
NIGERIAN SUPREME COURT CASES
[1985] 2 N.S.C.C.
AJUWA & ORS. V. ODILI
5
DIBIE AJUWA & 2 ORS.
APPELLANTS
V
SABASTIAN BENJAMIN ODILI
RESPONDENTS
10
SUIT NO. SC 209/1984
SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA
BELLO,
J.S.0
OBASEKI,
J.S.C.
NNAMANI,
J.S.C.
15
UWAIS,
J.S.C.
COKER,
J.S.C.
13th September, 1985
Land Law - Trespass - Fishing lights - Plaintiff alleging ownership of lands
20
surrounding disputed lake and possession and use of lake by his family from
time immemorial - Plaintiffs traditional evidence rejected as unreliable - Plaintiff
failing to prove better right to possession.
Evidence - Previous judgment of court of co-ordinate jurisdiction - Evidential
25
value.
Appeals - Findings of fact - Competence of appeal court to interfere - Title
limits.
30
ISSUES:
1.
What is the evidential value of a previous judgment of a court of co-ordinate
jurisdiction?
2.
Whether a previous judgment establishing title in a party to land in dispute
(though not pleaded as estoppel per rem judicatum) is admissible as evidence
25
in a later case in a court of co-ordinate jurisdiction to prove such title.
3.
Whether findings of fact of a court are binding on another court of co-ordinate
jurisdiction.
4.
Whether evidence given by a witness of a license given by a third party to do
a certain act is hearsay evidence.
40
5.
What are the limits of an appeal court's competence to re-evaluate the evidence
taken before a trial judge and interfere with his findings thereon?
FACTS:
The plaintiff/respondent brought this action for damages for trespass, and an
injunction, alleging ownership of lands surrounding a disputed lake and possess-
45
ion and use of the lake by his family since time immemorial. The defendants con-
tended that the said lands were communally owned by their community, with the
lake exclusively reserved for the use of any incumbent traditional head of the en-
tire community, the Obi. The defendants also gave oral evidence that the present
Obi had granted them licenses to fish in the lake. A previous judgment in a suc-
50
cessful action by the former Obi on behalf of the entire community against a
stranger was tendered. The community's title was confirmed by the judgment, and
the judgment was relied on by trial judge as evidence of acts of ownership by the
community. The trial judge also found the traditional evidence and evidence of
AJUWA & ORS. V. ODILI
1131
acts of user adduced by the plaintiff to be unreliable and he dismissed the action.
The plaintiff appealed against this decision to the Court of Appeal which reversed
the decision and allowed the appeal, each Justice giving almost different reasons
for coming to his decision. The court held that the judgment tendered at the trial
5
was not evidence establishing title on behalf of the Obi's people and that the oral
evidence of the defendants that the Obi granted them license to fish was hearsay
and therefore inadmissible. The Court of Appeal also set aside the trial judge's
finding of fact and substituted their own findings on the evidence. The defendants
appealed to the Supreme Court.
10
HELD:
1. The judgment of a court of co-ordinate jurisdiction has a high evidential value
and very strong persuasive effect and if a judge is persuaded by such judgment
(as in this case) he has committed no wrong against the principles of justice.
2. The Court of Appeal erred in holding that the judgment in which the former Obi
15
obtained a declaration of title on behalf of the community was not evidence
establishing the title of his people and their right to use the lake as the judgment
in the claim is evidence of the successful prosecution of a claim for declaration
of title and its evidential value is enormous. As against the respondent's case
in this case, it is fatal to his claim. The contents of the judgment are certainly
20
fatal to the claim of ownership and possession of the lake by the respondent
and his ancestors from time immemorial.
3. The findings of fact of a court of co-ordinate jurisdiction should be looked at
with respect by the other court but certainly those findings are not binding on
the other court. No court should on matters of fact simply rubber stamp the
25
decision of another court and it would be iniquitous to attempt in this way to
fetter the discretion of the trial court with respect to what its views should be on
a dispassionate consideration of the evidence oral and or documentary placed
before it.
4. The evidence of the defendant witness to the effect that the Obi admitted to him
30
that he permitted the defendants to fish in the lake was not hearsay but evidence
against the Obi himself that he permitted the defendants to fish in the Oforboh
lake. Also, his evidence of the Aboh native custom regarding the reservation
of the nine lakes for the exclusive use of the reigning Obi was clearly admissible
both as a traditional piece of evidence and as a matter within his knowledge.
35
5. The appraisal of the evidence was principally the function of the trial court and
not that of the appeal court, unless and except such findings are clearly wrong
and perverse. The trial judge dealt adequately with the issues and evidence
adduced before him and in his judgment he applied the law correctly and the
justices of appeal went far beyond their competence by re-evaluating the
40
evidence; and their approach to the whole case was misconceived; they were
clearly in error to have interfered and substituted their own view on the evidence
when those findings were not perverse.
6. The plaintiff/respondent failed to prove a better right to possession and his
claim for trespass must therefore fail.
45
CASES REFERRED TO IN JUDGMENT:
1.
Lawal v. Dawodu,
(1972) 1 All N.L.R. (Part 2) 270.
2.
Kakarah v. Imonikhe,
(1974) 4 S.C. 153.
3.
Woluchem v. Chief Gudi,
(1981) 5 S.C. 319.
50
4.
Chief Ebba v. Chief Agodo,
(1984) 4 S.C. 84.
5.
James Uluba & Ors v. Chief Sillo,
(1973)
1
S.C. 37.
6.
Shitta-Bey v. L.E.D.B,
(1962)
1
All N.L.R. 373.
7. lbeziako v. Nwagbogu,
(1972) 1 S.C. 53.
8.
Alade v. Aborisade,
(1960) 5 F.S.C. 167.
To continue reading
Request your trial