IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

AKURE JUDICIAL DIVISION

HOLDEN AT AKURE

ON FRIDAY THE 3^RD DAY OF JUNE, 2016

BEFORE THEIR LORDSHIPS:

HON. JUSTICE SONTOYE DENTON WEST                                              JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL (PRESIDING)

HON. JUSTICE MOHAMMED A. DANJUMA                                             JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL

HON. JUSTICE JAMES SEHU ABRIYI                                                           JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL

APPEAL NO: CA/AK/180/2013

                                                                                                   SUIT NO. HK/24/2008

BETWEEN:

SAMUEL ILESANMI                                                                                                                       APPELANT

AND 

1. GABRIEL OGUNLEYE
2. MINISTRY OF LAND & HOUSING                                 RESPONDENTS

REPRESENTATION

HUSSEIN AFOLABI, ESQ.  –  FOR THE APPELLANT

OLAWOLE LOUIS OMOTOSHO ESQ.   –  FOR THE RESPONDENTS.

ISSUE:

APPELLATE COURT – WHEN TO INTERFERE – TRIAL COURT: On when an appellate court will interfere with findings of trial court.

PRINCIPLE:

I do think that the learned trial judge with due respect, shut his eyes to the very obvious evidence led and drew wrong conclusion from the accepted facts or proved facts. A re- evaluation of the evidence led has led me to a different conclusion as made by the trial court. On the authority of Osuji V. Ekeocha (supra), this is a good case to interfere in the exercise of the evaluation of evidence and the inferences as drawn by the trial judge.

ISSUE:

DUTY OF COURT IN EVALUATING EVIDENCE: Whether a court has a duty to evaluate evidence adduced before in both oral and documentary in the determination of any dispute

PRINCIPLE:

A documentary evidence or document, once admitted shall be part of the evidence led in the case and it is duty of the court to consider all evidence, including the evaluation of the documents before arriving at a decision. To fail to do so will amount to denial of the right of fair hearing.

ISSUE:

ADMISSIBILITY OF UNREGISTERED REGISTRABLE INSTRUMENT: Position of the law as regards the admissibility of an unregistered registrable instrument.

PRINCIPLE:

How can the document not be admissible or become irrelevant where a breach of its terms is alleged by the grantor thereof against the grantee? It is a consensual document and exhibit that is most relevant and the epicentre of the suit and relationship between the parties herein. Section 16 of the Land instrument Registration Law of Ondo state harped upon for expurgation by the learned trial judge, I must say with due respect does not operate against the admissible relevance and use of the said Exhibit D2.

It is clear to me that it is only when the document is sought to be tendered for the purpose of proving title or interest in land, that it shall not be pleaded, tendered or admitted for that purpose if not registered.

If, however the purpose of reliance on the document is to show that a grantee lawfully entered into possession and was using or exercising acts of possession lawfully pursuant to the document, then it is not tendered with a view to proving title or possessory right or any claim to the land.

If the purpose of the document being tendered is to show in defence that the respondent was not in violation of the terms and condition of the grant, then it is an admissible document even if it was not registered. It was used merely as proof of an agreement to enter into land and cultivate and therefore relied upon as a defence.

READ FULL JUDGMENT