- Phillips v. Eba Odan Comm. & Ind. Co. Ltd
- ₦ 200
Phillips v. Eba Odan Comm. & Ind. Co. Ltd
EBA ODAN COMMERCIAL & INDUSTRIAL COMPANY LIMITED
SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA
ALOMA MARIAM MUKHTAR JSC ( Presided )
FRANCIS FEDODE TABAI JSC
SULEIMAN GALADIMA JSC
NWALI SYLVESTER NGWUTA JSC ( Read the Lead Judgment )
OLUKAYODE ARIWOOLA JSC
FRIDAY, 13 APRIL 2012
APPEAL - Findings of fact by trial court - Basis of - Confirmation of by Court of Appeal - What amounts to - Supreme Court - Attitude of thereto
APPEAL - Inadmissible evidence - Where wrongly admitted - Court of Appeal - Duty on to expunge
APPEAL - Issues for determination - Proliferation of - Impropriety of
EVIDENCE - Burden of proof in civil suit - Plaintiff - Facts asserted by him - Onus on to prove - Evidence Act, section 13 considered
EVIDENCE - Pleadings - Bindingness of parties by - Facts not pleaded - Evidence led on - Irrelevance of
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Statement of defence - Reply to - When necessary
STATUTE - Evidence Act, section 135 - Civil suit - Plaintiff in - Facts asserted by him - Onus on to prove
1 Whether the Court of Appeal was right when it held that the tape recording, exhibit P3 and P4 were strangely and abnormally admitted in evidence by the trial court:
- When there was no contention or controversy about the fact that appellant did not plead any fact on tape recording.
- When on the merit of the admission of the tape recording, no proper foundation was laid by the appellant before its admission and the admission processing did not accord with the rules of evidence.
- Whether the Court of Appeal was right when it upheld the decision of the trial court which rejected as unreliable the evidence of the handwriting expert called by the appellants.
- Whether the Court of Appeal was right when it upheld the trial court’s decision which relied and acted on the opinion of the handwriting expert, DW1 and the evidence of DW2 in proof of the due execution of the deed of assignment, exhibit P2, by appellants.
- Whether the Court of Appeal was right when it held that the mere fact that the survey plan attached to the deed of assignment, exhibit P2 was prepared at a date later than when the deed itself was prepared was not fatal to the validity of the deed of assignment.
The plaintiff claimed in the High Court of Lagos State that he granted a sublease of the disputed land to the defendant for 20 years and a deed of agreement in pursuant of was signed by him. He prayed the court for a declaration that the deed of assignment subsequently registered by the defendant thereon be declared null and void. The defendant however claimed that though an agreement for sublease was reached between the parties, the plaintiff subsequently made an offer for outright sale of the land and a deed of assignment was executed therefor. The trial court dismissed plaintiffs’ claims. Aggrieved, the plaintiff appealed to the Court of Appeal, where the appeal was also dismissed. Yet aggrieved, he appealed to the Supreme Court.