JOBI V. OSHILAJA

• Pages: 15-18

JOBI V. OSHILAJA



15

JOBI V. OSHILAJA

5

ABRAHAM OGUNEYE JOBI



APPELLANT

V

10 PETER ADEWUNMI OSHILAJA

(for himself and as the

representative of the

PRECIOUS STONE CHURCH, Surulere)



RESPONDENT

SUIT NO. FSC 472/1961

15

FEDERAL SUPREME COURT.

BRETT,



F.J.

TAYLOR,



F.J.

BAIRAMIAN,



F.J.

8th January, 1963.

20

Evidence - Signature - Denial by suppOsed signatory.

Practice and Procedure - Dispute over authenticity of signature - Question as to

necessity of trial judge comparing signatures before him to form layman's

25



opinion.

ISSUE:

1. Whether it is open to a judge to form a layman's opinion on a matter in which

direct evidence could have been led.?

30

FACTS:

The plaintiff sued claiming certain land, relying on a conveyance from a fam-

ily; he conceded that the signature of one T.B. was necessary for its validity. The

defendant, who also relied on a conveyance from that family, alleged that the sig-

natures of T.B. and another on the plaintiff's conveyance were not genuine. There

35



was a handwriting expert's report on T.B.'s signature but it was equivocal; he was

not called. The plaintiff did not adduce, any evidence on the execution of his con-

veyance; he did not even call the attesting witness. The defendant called T.B. who

admitted his signature on the defendant's conveyance but denied what purported

to be his signature on the plaintiff's conveyance. The trial Judge decided that the

40



plaintiff had failed to prove T.B.'s signature on his conveyance; he also stated in

his judgment that passages in the expert's report confirmed the view he had formed

unaffected by the report. The plaintiff on appeal (a) complained of the Judge's

referring to that report; and also (b) submitted that the Judge had a duty to com-

pare the signatures on the conveyances and form his own opinion on whether or

45



not T.B. had signed the plaintiff's conveyance.

HELD:

That as the judge had before him the defendant's denial that he had made the

document and the plaintiff's failure to call evidence, there is no reason why he

should have thought it necessary or proper to form a layman's opinion on a mat-

50



ter on which direct evidence could have been led; nevertheless, he came to the

correct decision on the evidence before him.