EKPA V. UTONG
Pages | 278-297 |
278
NIGERIAN SUPREME COURT CASES
[1991] 2 N.S.C.C.
should not formulate an issue for the parties, but where it is necessary to do so,
the court must call on the parties to address on the issue formulated.
It is for these reasons and the fuller reasons given by my learned brother,
Uche
Omo, J.S.C.
that I dismissed the appeal.
Appeal dismissed.
EKPA V. UTONG
1.
CHIEF ASUQUO EKPA
)
2.
NYONG ASUQUO
)
3.
CHIEF BASSEY ESSIEN
)
APPELLANTS
(for themselves and on behalf) )
of Nung Ette village, lbesikpo
)
Uyo.)
)
V.
1.
CHIEF ETIM AKPAN UTONG
)
2.
CHIEF EFFIONG AKPAN ENOH )
3.
CHIEF AKPAN EDET EKPENYONG)
RESPONDENTS
(for themselves and on behalf of )
the people of Ikot Abasi Idem
)
village, lbesikpo, Uyo.
)
APPEAL NO. SC. 102/1989.
SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA
UWAIS,
J.S.C.
BELGORE,
J.S.C.
NNAEMEKA-AGU, J.S.C.
A KPATA ,
J.S.C.
NWOKEDI,
J.S.C.
18th July, 1991.
Appeals - Court ofAppeal - General powers of- Whether competent to re-evaluate evidence
adduced in trial court - Judgments from District Customary Court - Duty of appellate
court in respect thereof - Findings of fact by trial court - Attitude of appellate court
thereto.
Land Law - Dispute to land - Failure of plaintiff to prove his claim - Consequence - Gift
of land - Failure of trial court to make findings thereto - Whether proper to remit same
to trial court for determination.
Practice and Procedure - Native Courts - Whether bound by rules of technicalities
applicable to regular courts.
Words and Phrases - "rehearing" - Meaning of
ISSUES:
1. What is the extent of the Court of Appeal's competence to re-evaluate the
evidence taken before a trial judge and interfere with his findings thereon?
EKPA V. UTONG
279
2.
What is the duty on an appellate court when considering judgments from District
or Customary Courts?
3.
Whether Native Courts are bound by rules of technicalities applicable to regular
courts.
5
FACTS:
The plaintiffs instituted an action against the defendants in a District Court
claiming six parcels of land which were in the possession of the defendants.
The plaintiffs' case was that the six parcels of land in question were given by
10
their ancestors of the respondents 140 years ago. no evidence was adduced to
prove ownership and no findings of fact were made in relation to conditions of the
gift of land alleged. They contended that the decision of the District Court was
unwarranted, unreasonable and could not be supported by the evidence before
it. They also pointed out the inconvenience which the decision would cause to
15 them. In his judgment, the Chief Magistrate concluded that the District Court's
judgment was against the weight of evidence and unreasonable. He therefore set
it aside and allowed the appeal.
Also dissatisfied, the plaintiffs appealed to the High Court against the judgment
of the Magistrate Court. The High Court, after hearing submissions by counsel for
20
both parties, allowed the appeal on the ground that the defendants committed an
act which rendered them liable to forfeit their interests on the lands because by
their action they denied the title of their overlords. The High Court therefore set
aside the judgment of the Magistrate Court and restored that of the trial court.
The defendants then appealed to the Court of Appeal on the ground, inter alia
25
that the High Court erred in law in affirming the judgment of the District Court when
the plaintiffs in the District Court did riot prove their root of title to the defendants'
ancestors for farming purposes and the defendants were in possession for over
140 years. The cause of action arose because, amongst other things, the defen-
dants were trespassing on parcels of land outside those held by them as tenants
30 of the plaintiffs. However the plaintiffs during trial, did not adduce evidence to prove
that their ancestors were the owners of the land nor did they show that any
conditions were attached to the gift of the six parcels of land to the defendants'
ancestors.
On their part, the defendants denied the plaintiffs' claim and contended that
35 the six parcels of land and another one belonged to them and that they were not
tenants of the plaintiffs.
The trial District Court after inspecting the lands in question and considering
the case before it, founded for the plaintiffs and ordered the defendants to
surrender possession of two of the six parcels of land in dispute to the plaintiffs.
40 The majority decision did not however make any finding as to whether the parcels
of land in dispute were conveyed to the defendants as an absolute gift for farming
purposes.
Being dissatisfied, the defendants appealed to the Chief Magistrate Court. The
Court of Appeal concluded that the findings made by the District Court during the
45
inspection supported the case being made by the defendants and that the plaintiffs
failed to show how their ancestors had come to own the land. The Court therefore
allowed the appeal of the defendants and set aside the judgment of the High Court
in its entirety and made an order dismissing the plaintiffs' case.
The plaintiffs in turn appealed to the Supreme Court, being dissatisfied with the
50
judgment of the Court of Appeal, on the ground, inter alia, that the learned Justices
of the Court of Appeal erred in law when they upset the concurrent findings of fact
by the District, Magistrate and High Courts that title in the property in dispute
To continue reading
Request your trial