BAKARE V. THE STATE

• Pages: 772-777

772



NIGERIAN SUPREME COURT CASES

[1986] 2 N.S.C.C.

usually interfere with the concurrent findings of two courts, for a greater reason it

will not interfere with the' concurrent findings of three courts.

In this case, learned counsel for the appellant quarrelled over the identity of the

land. There is no issue between the parties as to the identity of the land. A plan

was used. The surveyor gave evidence at p.9 of the record. He was not cross-



5

examined. In

Odofin's

case cited to us, the court held that the plan was irreconcil-

able with the oral testimony of the plaintiff. In this case, all the features mentioned

by the plaintiff appeared on the plan, Exhibit B. The only difference is that the plan

contained some more features. This does not make the plan irreconcilable with

the evidence.



10

On the issue of grant, the case of

Ekpo v. Ita

and

Kojo v. Bonsie

clearly shows

that where traditional evidence is inconclusive the case will rest on questions of

fact and recent acts of possession. The trial court disbelieved the defendant's

story and accepted the evidence of the plaintiff. The trial court said at p.63 line 33

of the record:



15

"It is to my mind that the story of the plaintiff that the land was granted to his

family by Shoun is more consistent with the truth than the story of the defend-

ants that their ancestors settled on the land".

At p.64 of the record, the trial court continued:

"There is no dispute as to the fact that the plaintiff and his family have been in

possession of the land



The plaintiff has proved his traditional history. I do

not believe the traditional history of the defendants".

These findings have been upheld by the High Court on appeal and by the Court

of Appeal. It is too late in the day to ask this court to overturn or reverse the con-

current findings of these three courts. The appeal is devoid of any merits and it

ought to be dismissed. It is accordingly hereby dismissed. There will be costs to



30

the respondent which I assess at N300.00.

Appeal dismissed.

35

BAKARE V. THE STATE

OLUWOLE BAKARE



APPELLANT



40

V

THE STATE



RESPONDENT

SUIT NO. SC 183/1985

SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA

OBASEKI,



J.S.C.



45

NNAMANI,



J.S.C.

KAZEEM,



J.S.C.

KAW U ,



J.S.C.

OPUTA,



J.S.C.

29th May, 1986



50

Criminal Law and Procedure - Murder - Provocation - Self-defence - Admissible

evidence - Confessional statements - Discretion of trial court to believe part

and disbelieve part - Whether proper.

20

25