IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

EKITI JUDICIAL DIVISION

HOLDEN AT ADO EKITI

ON WEDNESDAY THE 22^ND DAY OF MAY, 2013

BEFORE THEIR LORDSHIPS:

JIMI OLUKAYODE BADA                                                                    –              JUSTICE COURT OF APPEAL

MASSOUD ABDULRAHMAN OREDOLA                                    –              JUSTICE COURT OF APPEAL

UCHECHUKWU ONYEMENAM                                                      –              JUSTICE COURT OF APPEAL

                                                                                                APPEAL NO: CA/EK/41/2012

BETWEEN:

1. SIMEON ADESUGBA OGUNDARE
2. HIGH CHIEF MICHEAL ABOBADOYE

(The Onife of Ufe Quarters, Isinbode-Ekiti)                                              

                                                                                                                      APPELLANTS                        

3. CHIEF JOSHUA IDOWU ABEGUNDE

(Sagbale of Ijuda section,Ufe Quarters,                                                               

Isinbode –Ekiti ) suingfor themselves

 and on behalf of the entire members of the

  community

AND

JULIUS ALAO

(For himself and other members of Aaye                                           RESPONDENT

Community of Okeaye Quarters, Isinbode- Ekiti)                                                         

REPRESENTATION

BABALOLA ABEGUNDE, ESQ. with OLUWATOYIN ABEGUNDE (MRS) – FOR THE APPELLANTS

HUSSEIN AFOLABI ESQ, – FOR THE RESPONDENT

ISSUE:

FAILURE OF COURT TO CONSIDER A PARTICULAR ISSUE: Whether the failure of a court to consider an issue amounts to a denial of fair hearing.

PRINCIPLE:

The judgement of a court which must demonstrate a thorough and painstaking reflection, coupled with balancing of the case of the parties, cannot be vitiated simply because of the judge’s style of writing. See Okulate vs Awosanya (2000) 2 NWLR (Pt. 646) 530. Howbeit, where a court fails to give full dispassionate consideration and determination of the case of a party, it is a situation which touches on the violation of the party’s right to fair hearing. It is thus trite that where there is a breach of a party’s right to fair hearing, then the proceedings are vitiated and thereby require the intervention of an appellate court on the complaint of the affected party. See Adigun vs Attorney General Oyo State (1987) 1 NWLR (Pt. 53) 678; Nwokoro vs Onuma (1990) 3 NWLR (Pt. 136) 22/32-33. However, before the intervention of an appellate court becomes desirable, it must be vividly demonstrated that such a lapse on the part of the trial court has occasioned a gross miscarriage of justice.

ISSUE:

EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE: Duty of trial judge to evaluate evidence

PRINCIPLE:

It is significant to note that the most crucial aspect of the duty of a court of first instance in the evaluation of evidence is to determine where the imaginary scale preponderates by the place of qualitative evidence therein. Thus, the court must ensure and maintain proper balance in respect thereof. All the basics have been done in the instant case. Issue No 1 is thereby resolved in favour of the respondent.

ISSUE:

EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE: Duty of the trial court to consider and evaluate the documentary evidence in its file/records and effect of failure to do so.

PRINCIPLE:

It is settled and undisputed that a court is expected in all proceedings before it, to admit and act only on evidence which is admissible in law, that is under the Evidence Act or any other law or enactment which is relevant in any particular case. See Abolade Agboola Alade vs Salawu Jagun Olukale (1976)2 SC 183/187. The complaint against the alleged conduct of the trial court not to pronounce on document tendered and admitted before it and in favour of the appellants will become weighty and invidious if it can  be adjudged as having made the decision of the trial court to be perverse, thereby justifying the setting aside of the said judgement.

READ FULL JUDGMENT