NNAJIFOR & ORS V. UKONU & ORS

• Pages: 1067-1084

NNAJ1FOR & ORS V. UKONU & ORS



1067

In the final result and for the reasons given above and the fuller reasons in the

lead Judgment of my learned brother Bello, J.S.C. which I now adopt as mine, I,

too, will dismiss this appeal. I adopt all the consequential orders made in the lead

judgment.

5



Appeal dismissed.

NNAJIFOR & ORS V. UKONU & ORS

10

1.

EZEALA NNAJIFOR

2.

NWANERI NWOSU

15 3. NWAOPARA OGBOGU

4.

ANOSIKE OSUAGWU



APPELLANTS

5.

MADUWUBA MGBUDOM

6.

AJOMIWE IYIOKU

(For themselves and as

20



representing Ezemelaha

Village, Eziama)

V

1.

LINUS UKONU

2.

SAMUEL

IBE

25 3. EDUND UBAKA



RESPONDENTS

(For themselves and

as representing Ndi

Mbara Village, Eziama)

SUIT NO. SC 179/1984

30

SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA

OBASEKI,



J.S.C.

ANIAGOLU,



J.S.C.

NNAMANI,



J.S.C.

UWAIS,



J.S.C.

35



KAZEEM,



J.S.C.

11th July, 1986

Land Law - Possession - Proof of - Acts of fanning on land - Effect.

40



Evidence - Witnesses - Credibility of - Matters within knowledge of witness -

False testimony on those nzatter.s

.

- Effect on credibility.

Practice and Procedure - Appeals - Findings of fact - Concurrent findings of

fact - Interference by appellate court - Applicable principles.

45

Words and Phrases - "Miscarriage of justice" - Meaning of.

ISSUE:

1. Under what circumstances will the Supreme Court interfere with the concurrent

50



findings of fact made by the two lower courts?

FACTS:

The plaintiffs instituted an action against the defendants, claiming against the

defendants, a declaration of title to land, damages for trespass and a perpetual

injunction to restrain the defendants and their agents from committing further acts

1068



NIGERIAN SUPREME COURT CASES

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

of trespass on the land. After taking evidence of both sides, the learned trial judge

delivered a well considered judgment in which he held in favour of the plaintiffs/re-

spondents.

The defendants appealed to the Court of Appeal which also held in favour of

the plaintiffs, and dismissed the appeal. The appellants thereupon appealed to the



5

Supreme Court, contending that the learned trial judge did not consider all the evi-

dence on the pleadings.

HELD:

It has been emphasised times without number that the Supreme Court will not,

unless there has been a miscarriage of justice or an error in substantive or proce-



10

dural law, interfere with the concurrent findings of fact made by the courts below.

In the instant appeal the findings of the trial judge were supported by the plead-

ings and the decision was justified and confirmed by the Court of Appeal, there-

fore, there is no basis for interfering with those findings.

15

CASES REFERRED TO IN JUDGMENT:

1.

Akibu v Opaleye

(1974) 1 All N.L.R. 344, 356

2.

Akinola v Oluwo

(1962) 1 All N.L.R. 224

3.

Akpagbue v Ogu

(1976) 6 S.C. 63. 78-79

4.

Ariori v Elemo

(1983) 1 S.C. 13



20

5.

Chinwendu v Mbamali

(1980) 3 S.C. 31

6.

Djukpon v Orovuyoube

(1967) 1 All N.L.R. 134, 139-140

7.

Ebba v Ogodo

(1984) 4 S.C. 84, 91-112

8.

Enang v Adu

(1981) 11-12 S.C. 25

9.

Ezeudu v Obiagu

(1986) 2 N.W.L.R. 206



25

10.Fabumiyi v Obaje

(1968) N.M.L.R. 242

11.Fakoya v St Pauls Church, Shagamu

(1966) 1 All N.L.R. 74, 76

12.Fatoyinbo v Williams

(1956) 1 F.S.C. 87

13.1gbado v Enarofia

(1980) 5-7 S.C. 42, 55

14.Kakara v lmonikhe

(1974) 4 S.C. 151



30

15.Lamai v Orbih

(1980) 5-7 S.C. 28

16.Lawal v Dawodu

(1972) 1 All N.L.R. (Pt.2) 272, 286

17.Lemomu v Ali-Balogun

(1975) 1 All N.L.R. 30, 40

18.Mogaji v Odofin

(1978) 4 S.C. 91

19.Okafor v ldigo

(1984) 1 S.C.N.L.R. 481; (1984) 6 S.C. 1



35

20.

Woluchem v Gudi

(1981) 5 S.C. 319, 326

21.Abinabina v Enyimadu.

12 W.A.C.A. 171, 173

22.

The Alice

(1868) LR 2 P.C. 246, 248

23.Benmax v Austin Motor Co. Ltd.

(1955) 1 All E.R. 326

24.Devi v Roy

(1946) A.C. 508, 521-523



40

25.

The Glannibanta

(1876) LR I P.D. 283, 287

26.

The Julia

14 Moo P.C. 210, 235

27.

The Sir Robert Peel

4 A.S.P. M.L. 321, 322

28.S.S.

Hontestroom v S.S. Sagaporack and S.S. Hontestroom v S.S. Durham

Castle

(1927) A.C. 37, 47.



45

29.Smith

v

Chadwick

(1883-84) 9 App. Cas. 187, 193- 194

30.

Thomas v Thomas

(1947) A.C. 487, 488.

31.Lokoyi v Olojo

(1983) 8 S.C. 61.

Chief F.R.A. VVilliams S.A.N.

(with him

E.O. Sotunde, Esq.)

for Appellants



50

J. Obasi lwuagwu Esq.

for Respondent.