NWADIKE & ORS. V. IBEKWE & ORS
| Pages | 1219-1238 |
NWADIKE & ORS. V. IBEKWE & ORS.
1219
NWADIKE & ORS. V. IBEKWE & ORS.
5
1.
PAUL NWADIKE
2.
MARTIN ANELE
APPELLANTS
10
3.
SUNDAY ODOEMENAM
V
1.
CLETUS IBEKWE
2.
SIMON NWAIWU
3.
MOSES ONONIWU
RESPONDENTS
15
(For and on behalf of members
of Eluama family in Umudunmba
Amaigbo Nkwerre Division in Okigwe
Judicial Division)
SUIT NO. SC 50/1986
20
SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA
ESO,
J.S.C.
KAWU,
J.S.C.
OPUTA,
J.S.C.
AGBAJE,
J.S.C.
25
NNAEMEKA-AGU, J.S.C.
4th December, 1987
Land Law - Declaration of Title - Absence of defence - Failure of defence to
claim - Distinction and effect - Standard of proof required.
30
Evidence - Wrongful admission of evidence - Whether question of law - Privilege
-
Comnumications and letters expressed "without prejudice" - Scope of protection
-
Admissibility - Appeals - Grounds of appeal - Error in law - What amounts
to - How framed - Trial Court's failure to consider issues on pleadings
-
35
Whether matter of law or otherwise.
ISSUES:
1.
What is the standard of proof in a claim for declaration of title to land?
2.
What is the distinction between a ground of law
simpliciter
and a ground of
40
mixed law and fact, when considering grounds of appeal?
3.
Is the ground of appeal that "the judgment is against the weight of evidence" a
ground of fact or law?
4.
What is the duty of a trial Judge, where no defence has been filed to a plaintiff's
claim?
45
5. Whether a letter marked "without prejudice" is admissible as evidence in a land
matter.
6. Whether it is necessary for a trial Judge to consider the issues raised on the
pleadings before it.
FACTS:
50
The Plaintiffs/Respondents brought an action in the High Court against the
De-
fendants claiming a declaration of title to land, damages for trespass, and an in-
junction to restrain the defendants from further interference with the land. The High
Court found the plaintiffs' case proved and gave judgment in their favour. The ap-
pellants appealed to the Court of Appeal who upheld the finding of the trial court
1220
NIGERIAN SUPREME COURT CASES
[1987] 2 N.S.C.C.
and dismissed the appeal. The appellant further appealed to the Supreme Court,
contending inter alia that a document marked "without prejudice" was wrongly ad-
mitted and that the trial Judge did not consider the issues raised in the pleadings.
The Respondent raised a preliminary objection, contending that each of the ap-
pellant's 8 grounds of appeal was based on facts and ought to be struck out and
5
that in the absence of special circumstances, matter settled in the two lower courts
will not be raised on appeal to the Supreme Court.
HELD:
1. The standard of proof in a claim for a declaration of title is on a balance of
probabilities.
10
2a.Where the question raised in a ground of appeal is one of law as applied to
disputed facts or the ground raises partly law and facts, it is a ground of mixed
law and fact. However, where the ground deals merely with a matter of
inference, it is a ground of law.
b. A ground of appeal that complains of a trial court's failure to consider the issues
15
raised in the pleadings is certainly a complaint involving questions of law alone,
while a complaint in a ground of appeal in the Supreme Court of a failure of
the Court of Appeal to discharge its judicial duty of considering and
pronouncing on the issues raised before it involves questions of law.
3.
The ground of appeal that "the judgment is against the weight of evidence" is a
20
ground of fact and not one of law.
4.
It is trite law, that where no defence has been filed to a plaintiff's claim, the trial
Judge's only alternative is to give judgment for the plaintiff.
5.
All letters marked 'without prejudice' are protected from being admitted in
evidence where they relate to the subject matter of an action between the parties
25
to the action. Such protection however, does not apply to a third party.
6.
Where a trial is conducted on the basis of pleadings, it is necessary for a trial
Judge to resolve all the issues raised in the pleadings and the failure of a trial
Judge to do this could be fatal to the case.
7.
The Supreme Court has a policy whereby the court will not disturb concurrent
30
findings of fact by a trial and Appellate Court, unless there are special
circumstances necessitating such disturbance. No special circumstances have
been shown in this case.
CASES REFERRED TO IN JUDGMENT:
35
1.
Alado v. Dina
XVII N.L.R. 32.
2.
Rapen v. Rudd
II W.A.C.A. 95.
3.
Udofia v. Afia
VI W.A.C.A. 216.
4.
Sunday Piaro v. Chief Wopnu Tenale & Ors.
(1976) 12 S.C. 31 at 37.
5.
Kojo v. Bonsie
(1957) 1 W.L.R. 1223; (1958) W.A.L.R. 257.
40
6.
Enang v. Adu
(1981) 11 - 12 S.C. 61 at PP. 68 - 73.
7.
Ojomu v. Ajao
(1983) 9 S.C. 22 at p.53.
8.
Elias v. Omo-Bare
(1982) 5 S.C. 25 at pp. 38/39.
9.
Omoregie v. ldugiemwaye
(1985) 2 N.W.L.R. 41 at p.60.
10.S.U. Ojemen & Others v. His Highness William 0. Momodu
45
11 (The Ogirrua of lrrua) & Others (1983) 1 S.C.N.L.R. 188. at page 203.
11.0Iuwole v. Lagos State Development Property Corporation
(1983) 5 S.C. 1.
12.Obijuru v. Ozime
(1985) 2 N.W.L.R. (Part 6) 167 at page 176 to 188.
13.J.B.
Ogbechie & Ors. v. Gabriel Onochie & Ors.
(1986) 2 N.W.L.R. 484.
14.Clarke v. Edinburgh, etc. Tramways
(1919) S.C. (H.L.) 35.
50
15.Fatoyinbo v. Williams
(1956) 1 F.S.C. 87.
16.Edwards (Inspector of Taxes) v. Bairstow & Anor
(1953) 3 All E.R. 48, at
p.56.
17. Cooper v.
Stubbs
(1925) 2 K.B. at p.277.
To continue reading
Request your trial