SHARFAL V. STATE

• Pages: 12-22

12

NIGERIAN SUPREME

COURT CASES

[1992]

3 N.S.C,C.

Section 28(1) and 28(6)(7) of the Land Use Act provide as follows:-

"28 (1) It shall be lawful for the Military Governor to revoke a right of

occupancy for overriding public interest.

(6)

The revocation of a right of occupancy shall be signified under the

land of a public officer duly authorised in that behalf by the Military

Governor and notice thereof shall be given to the holder.

The title of the holder of a right of occupancy shall be extinguished on

receipt by him of a notice given under subsection (5) or on such later date

as may be stated in the notice."

The appellant is not a holder of a right of occupancy since his title is imperfect.

The provision of section 10 of the Land Tenure Law is mandatory. Any document

such as Exhibit 1 which amounts to an instrument within the meaning of section

10 of the Land Tenure Law cannot be adduced in evidence or pleaded in any court

unless registered. See

Chief Omoni & Ors. v. Chief William Big Tom & Ors.

(1991)

6 N.W.L.R. (part 195) 93 at 106,

Afose Ole & Ors. v. Alfred A. Ekede & Ors.

(1991)4

N.W.L.R. (part 187)569 at 581 and 582 and

Muonweokwu v. Egbunike & Ors.

(1959)3 E.N.L.R. 53 at 54. Exhibit 1 was rightly expunged by the learned trial judge.

For these and the fuller reasons given by my learned brother,

Ogundare, J.S.C.,

I too dismiss the appeal and affirm the judgment of the court below. I abide by the

order as to costs contained in the lead judgment.

Appeal

dismissed.

SHARFAL V. STATE

YAWALE SHARFAL

APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE

RESPONDENT

APPEAL No. SC. 159/1990.

SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA

UWAIS,

J.S.C.

NNAEMEKA-AGU, J.S.C.

WALT,

J.S.C.

KUTIGI,

J.S.C.

OGWUEGBU,

J.S.C.

18th September, 1992.

(

7

)

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Appeal - Where argument not advanced in respect of a ground of appeal - Court to strike

out such ground.

Criminal Procedure - Pleas where parties are jointly charged - Whether proper to take a

joint plea - Irregularity in taking plea of accused - Effect on plea taken - Separate plea

50

of accused - Recording of - Whether mandatory in a joint trial - Failure to do so - Effect

on the plea taken - Not to vitiate trial.