3PLR -AJENIFUJA V. SALAKON

POLICY, PRACTICE AND PUBLISHING, LAW REPORTS  3PLR

[PDF copy of this judgment can be sent to your email for N300 only. Just order through lawnigeria@gmail.com and info@lawnigeria.com or text 07067102097] 

AJENIFUJA

V.

SALAKON

FEDERAL SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA

22ND JULY, 1960

3PLR/357/1955

BEFORE THEIR LORDSHIPS

MYLES JOHN ABBOTT, F.J. (Presided and Read the Judgment of the Court)

PERCIVAL CYRIL HUBBARD, AG. RJ.

JOHN IDOWU CONRAD TAYLOR, AG. F.J.

BETWEEN

1. ADENIYI W. AJENIFUJA
2. SAMUEL K. ADEBO

AND

WILSON O. SALAKOH

MAIN ISSUES

LAND LAW- Registration of title – Identity of land uncertain -Effect.

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – APPEAL -Additional evidence during hearing of appeal -When allowed.

REPRESENTATION:

Mr. L.J. Dosunmu – for the Appellants.

Mr. S. A. S. Sowemimo -for the Respondent.

MAIN JUDGMENT

ABBOTT, F.J. (Delivering the Judgment of the Court):

This appeal came before the Court on the 4th July, 1960, when we heard argument. It is an ap­peal from a decision of the learned Chief Justice of the High Court of Lagos, sitting in his appellate jurisdiction, whereby the decision of the Assistant Re­gistrar of Titles, upholding an objection to the first registration of certain land at Cemetery Street, Ebute Metta, was reversed. The learned Chief Jus­tice considered that the Assistant Registrar of Titles had come to a wrong conclusion and directed that the applicant for registration be registered as the owner of the land in question.

On the 4th July, 1960, we heard lengthy arguments from Counsel on both sides, and having considered the matter we re-opened the appeal on the 5th July, 1960, because we considered that it was essential that we be satis­fied before coming to our decision on the appeal before us that the land com­prised in Exhibit “B,” a Deed of Conveyance of 26th October, 1898, was the same land as that comprised in Exhibits “F” and “E,” a conveyance and a Memorandum of Endorsement respectively, and we, therefore, on the 5th July, directed Mr. Sowemimo, Counsel for the applicant/respondent, to call an official from the Federal Department of Surveys to give evidence on this point, and we adjourned the matter to the 14th July, 1960, having made it perfectly clear to Mr. Sowemimo what evidence we required.

On the 14th July, 1960, both Counsel appeared, and it then transpired from what Mr. Sowemimo said that he had not complied with the Court’s in­structions with regard to the evidence required. He had subpoenaed the wrong official, and as a result, in a great hurry and at considerable incon­venience to the Survey Department, he had to ask that the person whom he should originally have subpoenaed and who would have then, had he done so, had time to make researches and investigations, to appear before us without having been served with a subpoena. The witness gave evidence but was obliged to say that without the opportunity to make extensive research, it was impossible for him to say one way or the other whether the land shown on the plans and the documents above referred to was, in effect, the same.

We, therefore, find it impossible to be satisfied that the land to which the applicant showed a purported root of title, dated in the year 1898, is the same land as that comprised in the later modern Deeds which also, accord­ing to the applicant, formed part of his title. That being the case, we have no alternative but to allow this appeal, set aside the decision of the Court below and direct that the decision of the Assistant Registrar of Titles be restored. The order for costs in the Court below must also be set aside and the appel­lants in this Court must have costs of the appeal to the High Court assessed at £25 and also the costs of this appeal assessed at 25 guineas. Of this sum of 25 guineas, we order that Mr, Sowemimo pay the sum of 10 guineas person­ally in view of his complete failure to observe and carry out the instructions of the Court regarding the evidence which we desired to hear.

There is one more matter to which we wish to refer, and it is this. Mr. Sowemimo made it known on the 14th July that he desired to put in, through the witness who was called, documents and plans which were not before either of the Tribunals below. He had made no proper application to be per­mitted to do this and therefore, of course, such a request had to be summar­ily rejected. In any case, it would seem that this additional evidence was av­ailable at the time of the hearing before the Assistant Registrar of Titles, and if that was so, an application to adduce it during the bearing of the appeal would have been doomed to failure in any case.

HUBBARD, AG. F.J.:

I concur.

TAYLOR, AG. F.J.:

I concur.

Appeal Allowed.