SANYAOLU V. COKER & ANOR

• Pages: 119-134

119



NIGERIAN SUPREME COURT CASES

[1983] N.S.C.C.

them gave evidence in Hausa. With respect, assumptions could never amount to

evidence.

It would have amounted to travesty of justice to allow the judgment of the Court

of Appeal to stand. This Court has for some time now laid down as a guiding prin-

ciple that it is more interested in substance than in mere form. Justice can only be



5

done if the substance of the matter is examined. Reliance on technicalities leads

to injustice.

I am of the firm view that the respondents had a fair trial in the High Court. They

all understood the proceedings, they did not complain nor did their counsel com-

plain.



10

The appeal is therefore allowed and the conviction of the respondents by the

High Court of Plateau State stands.

UWAIS, J.S.C.: I

have had the privilege of reading in draft the judgment read

by my learned brother Nnamani J.S.C. As I agree with the reasons and conclusion



15

therein, I have nothing to add.

Appeal allowed.

20

SANYAOLU V. COKER & ANOR

H.R. SANYAOLU



APPELLANT



25

V



MRS SHOLA COKER & ANOR



RESPONDENTS

SUIT NO. SC 36/1982

SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA

SOWEMIMO,



J.S.C.



30

BELLO,



J.S.C.

ESO,



J.S.C.

ANIAGOLU,



J.S.C.

UWAIS,



J.S.C.

24th March, 1983



35

Land Law - Claims - Declaration of title - Whether plaintiff's claim precluded

by sale of land in dispute to 3rd party prior to action.

Evidence - Testimony of dead witness - Admissibility under S.34 of the Evidence



40

Act in Subsequent proceedings - unaffected by retrial order entered in the

previous proceedings - S.34 Evidence Act.

ISSUES:

1.

Whether the evidence of a witness in a previous abortive trial can be tendered



45

in a subsequent trial under S.34 (1) of the Evidence Act, the witness having died

before the subsequent trial.

2.

Can a party after divesting himself of title to a property by sale and due

conveyance, still be deemed to have any interest therein as to bring an action

for declaration of title and possession?



50

FACTS:

The plaintiffs instituted an action for a declaration of title to land against the de-

fendants. The plaintiffs traced their title to the Oloto Chieftaincy family. The land

having been sold by the Oloto Chieftaincy family to Alhaji Famu who subsequently

SANYAOLU V. COKER & ANOR



120

sold it to the plaintiffs father. The plaintiff's father sold several plots of the land in

fee simple. On his death, the plaintiffs obtained letters of administration, and they

also sold some plots to various people, including one Alatishe. They had exer-

cised rights of ownership over the land until the defendant came to disturb their

5



grantee, Alatishe.

The defendant traced his own title to one Amida Kaffo. Alatishe sued Sanyaolu

for trespass, but the judge held in favour of Sanyaolu, on the ground that Alatishe

failed to prove the identity of the land he claimed. The Judge though acknow-

ledging his right to possession, did not grant him such possession, so Alatishe did

10



not honour the injunction against him.

Alatishe's grantors, (i.e. the plaintiffs) decided to institute proceedings against

Sanyaolu, who pleaded

estoppel per rem judicatam.

Case was dismissed. The

Plaintiffs appealed to the Supreme Court against the judgment, which held that

there was a miscarriage of justice and ordered a trial

de novo.

15



At the retrial, the plaintiffs claimed for a declaration of title. They were granted

the declaration, and an injunction restraining the defendant from taking possess-

ion of the land. The trial court relied on the evidence of one witness who tendered

all documents, and the evidence of a deceased witness who had testified in the

previous proceedings.

20



The defendant appealed to the Court of Appeal which dismissed the appeal,

whereupon he further appealed to the Supreme Court, contending that the testi-

mony of the deceased was inadmissible, and that the plaintiffs could not claim a

declaration of title after divesting themselves of the said title.

HELD:

25



1. That while ordinarily a person cannot be allowed to claim a declaration of title

to land which he once owned but of which he had divested himself by sale to

a purchaser, each case must be examined against its own peculiar facts regard

being had to

30



1. the parties in the case.

2.

the points which were raised and argued.

3.

the finding of the trial court.

The plaintiffs were not precluded from maintaining this action, because they

35



proved a better title to the land than the defendants and also in view of the special

circumstances of the case.

2. That the evidence of the deceased person was admissible as all the conditions

laid down in sub-section 1 of Section 34 of the Evidence Act had been complied

40



with and satisfied.

CASES REFERRED TO IN JUDGMENT:

1.

Coker & anor v. Sanyaolu

(1976) 10 S.C. 203.

2.

Fadiora v. Gbadebo

(1978) 3 S.C. 219.

45

3.

Raji Oduola & ors v. John Gbadebo Coker & ors

(1981)

5 S.C. 197.

4.

Johnson v. Lawanson

(1971) 1 All N.L.R. 56.

5.

ldundun v. Okumagba

(1976) 9 & 10 S.C.

6.

Nahman v. Odutola

(1953) 14 W.A.C.A. 381, 384.

7.

Alade v. Aborishade

(1960) 5 F.S.C. 167, 173

50



8.

Wright v. Doe d. Tatham

(1834) 1 Ad. & El. 3, 18- 19.

9.

Abudu Karimu v. Daniel Fajule

(1968) N.M.L.R. 151.

10.

Thomas v. Holder

(1946) 12 W.A.C.A. 78.

11.Abinabina v. Enyimadu

(1953) A.C. 207.

12.Kuma v. Kuma

(1956) 5 W.A.C.A. 4.