SANUSI V. AMEYOGUN

• Pages: 681-698

SANUSI V. AMEYOGUN



681

SANUSI V. AMEYOGUN

5

ALHAJI OLADOJA SANUSI (for himself and as

representative of Ope Agbe Family)



APPELLANT

10



V.

OREITAN ISHOLA AMEYOGUN (for himself and

as representative of Ameyogun Family)



RESPONDENT.

APPEAL No. SC.288/1989.

15

SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA:

KAWU,



J.S.C.,

NNAEMEKA-AGU, J.S.C.,

WALT,



J.S.C.,

20



OLATAWURA,



J.S.C.,

OMO,



J.S.C.,

30th April, 1992.

25

Administration of Justice-

Fair trial - Scope of

Appeals-

Decision of a trial Court set aside on appeal - What order to make - Principles

applicable thereto.

30

Evidence -

Onus of proof in a land case - Wherein lies.

Judgment-

Court demolishing the case of the defendant before considering the plaintiff's -

Propriety of - Effect of - Case - When proved - Writing of judgment - How done -

Consideration of the defendant's case - When done - Judgment - Contents of - Retrial

35



and retrial de novo - Distinction between - Need to hear parties thereof or otherwise -

- When ordered - Need to refrain from commenting on the whole case therein - Non-suit

Error in the decision of a trial court - Correction or ordering of retrial by appellate court.

Land Law-

Title to land - Conflicting evidence of tradition - how resolved - Acts of

possession and ownership - Evaluation of - Duty of trial court - Rule in Kojo

H

v. Bonsie

40



&Anor,

(infra) - Purport of - Rationale for.

Practice and Procedure-

Order of non-suit - Need to hear parties before making same.

Trial-

Role of trial court - Role of appellate court.

45

Words and Phrases-

Miscarriage of justice - Meaning of

ISSUES:

1. Whether a trial court can demolish the case put forward by the defendant before

considering the plaintiff's case.

50 2. What is the procedure for writing judgment by a trial court and what are the

contents of such a judgment.

3. What are the principles governing the order to be made by an appellate court

after setting aside the judgment of a trial court?

682



NIGERIAN SUPREME COURT CASES

[1992] 1 N.S.C.C.

4.

How may a court resolve conflicting evidence of tradition in a title to land case?

5.

What are the roles of both the trial courts and appellate courts in the trial of

cases?

6.

When may an appellate court order the retrial of a case?

FACTS:

The Respondent for himself and as a representative of Ope Agbe Family

commenced an action against the appellant for himself and as a representative of

Ameyogun family in an Ibadan High Court, claiming four reliefs, to wit: declaration

that they were the proper persons entitled to the grant of statutory/customary right

of occupancy to a piece or parcel of land at Olomi area of lbadan, that the sale of

the said by the appellants was null and void; an order of perpetual injunction to

restrain further trespass or alienation of the land and fi5,000.00 damages for

trespass. The respondent relied on traditional history and numerous acts of

possession and ownership, ancient and recent, including granting permission to

one Atere, appellant's predecessor-in-title to farm on condition of payment of

traditional tribute (Ishakole). It was the appellant's refusal to pay Ishakole and his

purported sale of portions of the land in dispute that led to friction and to this suit.

The appellant denied the respondent's averments and stated how the land was

acquired and settled upon by Oni Ameyogun, a hunter from Oshogbo, and traced

how it descended on him, as well as numerous acts of possession and ownership

which they have exercised over the land. After the conclusion of evidence and

addresses of counsel, the learned trial judge

(Sijuwade J)

found the respondent's

case proved and gave judgment in his favour. Dissatisfied with the decision, the

appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal considered the

appeal on two of the six issues formulated by the appellant (Issues 7 and 5). The

court of Appeal held that the findings of fact of the trial Court were tainted with

wrongful approach in procedure, misdirection and misconceptions. The decision

was set aside and the case was remitted for hearing

de novo

by another judge.

The appellant being dissatisfied with the decision of the court of Appeal

appealed to the Supreme Court on the ground,

inter alia,

that the Court of Appeal

erred in law in ordering a retrial instead of dismissal of case when the respondent

did not make out a case which entitles him to judgment.

HELD:-

1.

To have descended on the main contentions of the defendant/appellant and

demolished them before considering the plaintiff's case is not only against

established procedure, it also gave an unfair advantage to the plaintiff and

resulted in unfair trial. Fair trial carries with it the necessary implication that the



40

court is fair to both parties to a suit. Where a court demolishes the case of the

defendant before looking at the case of the plaintiff, it cannot be said to have

been fair to the defendant.

In this case, the learned trial judge also shifted the onus of proof on the

defendant. That approach could not lead to fairness and justice.

(See p.689,

lines 37 - 43 & 48 - 49).

2.

Much as each judge's style of writing judgment is a peculiarity of his own, the

proper procedure is that a trial judge ought always to start by considering the

evidence led by the plaintiff to see whether he has led evidence on all the 50

material issues he needs to prove. No question of proof or belief or non-belief

of witnesses arises at this stage. If he has not so led evidence, or if the evidence

led by him is so patently unsatisfactory, then he has not made out what is

usually referred to as a

prima facie case,

in which case the trial judge does not

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

45