Latest COA Cases on Whether the Law insist that there must be no Contradictions in the Evidence of Witnesses called by the same Party

ANDREW GAMBO & ANOR V IBRAHIM WAME & ORS

Appeal no: CA/YL/91/2014

AREAS OF LAW:
APPEAL, LAND LAW, LAW OF EVIDENCE, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Appellant now Respondents instituted a suit before the Upper Area Court 11 Jalingo against the Respondents seeking declaratory and injunctive reliefs, among which was an order that the Plaintiffs are entitled to right of occupancy in respect of the land in dispute.

The Upper Area Court entered judgement in favour of the Appellant, hence the Respondent appealed against the said judgement to the High Court of Taraba State. The trial court in its judgement allowed the appeal and set aside the decision of the trial Court.

Dissatisfied with the trial court’s judgement, the Appellants have lodged the instant appeal before this court.

HELD

Appeal Allowed

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION

Ø  Whether the Judges of the High Court sitting in their appellate jurisdiction were justified in law when they set aside the decision of the trial Upper Area Court, Jalingo on the ground that the Appellants’ title or root of title on the land was not proved – (Ground 3).

Ø  Whether the Judges of the High Court sitting on appeal were justified in law when they set aside the decision of the trial Upper Area Court on the ground that the issue of possession of the land in dispute was not resolved by the Learned trial Judge in his judgment – (Ground 2).

Ø  Whether the Judges of the High Court sitting in their appellate jurisdiction were justified in law when they held that from the application for issuance of writ of summons up to conclusion of evidence, there is nothing therein to suggest that the Respondents/Plaintiffs sued the Appellants/Defendants in a representative capacity – (Ground 1).

RATIONES

PROOF OF TITLE TO LAND - WAYS OF PROVING TITLE TO LAND

“It is now trite law that there are five ways of proving title to land and they are by traditional evidence; by production of documents of title duly authenticated in the sense that their due execution must be proved; by positive acts of ownership extending over a sufficient length of time; by acts of long possession and enjoyment of the land; by proof of possession of connected or adjacent land in circumstances rendering it probable that the owner of such connected or adjacent land, would in addition, be the owner of the land in dispute. The law is that proof by any one of the five ways of proving ownership or title to land is sufficient. See Adesanya V. Aderounmu (2000) 6 SC (Pt. 11) 18 Ayoola V. Odofin (1984) 11 Sc 120 Nkado V. Obiano (1997) 5 NWLR (Pt. 503) 31 at 34 and Idundun V. Okumagba (1976) 9 – 10 SC 337”.PER J.S. ABIRIYI,J.C.A

TITLE TO LAND - DUTY OF A PLAINTIFF CLAIMING A DECLARATION OF TITLE TO LAND

“Evidence of traditional history as shown above is one of the accepted methods of establishing title to land. However a plaintiff who claims a declaration of title to land has the burden of setting out clearly by who and how the land was founded and the names of persons who had exercised acts of ownership on the land before it passed on to him. See Oyadare V. Ikeji (2005) 7 NWLR (Pt. 925) 571, Ohiaeri V. Akabeze (1992) 2 NWLR (Pt. 221) 1 SC and Olokotintin V. Sarumi (2002) 15 NWLR (Pt. 784) 307. PER J.S. ABIRIYI,J.C.A

CONTRADICTIONS IN THE EVIDENCE OF WITNESSES - WHETHER THE LAW INSIST THAT THERE MUST BE NO CONTRADICTIONS IN THE EVIDENCE OF WITNESSES CALLED BY THE SAME PARTY     

“It is the law that contradictions by witnesses called by the same party on an issue should not be material to the extent that they cast serious doubts on the case presented by that party or as to the reliability of such witnesses. The law does not insist that there must be no contradictions in the evidence of witnesses called by the same party on an issue in contention. See Nwokoro V. Onuma (1999) LPELR – 21 26 SC; (1999) 12 NWLR (Pt. 631) 342. PER J.S. ABIRIYI,J.C.A

STATUTE REFERRED TO

None