This is an appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeal, Ibadan Division. In point of fact, it is an appeal against the concurrent decisions of three courts each of which had found against the appellant.
In the Ibadan City No. 2 Grade A Customary Court, the plaintiff claimed against the appellant.“.... possession of the Shop at Bere Square, Ibadan, which the defendant holds as tenant to the plaintiff after repeated demand for possession.The plaintiff also claims 38 (thirty-six pounds) being arrears of rent for 6 (six) years, from 1st October 1966 to 30th September 1972 at 10/- per month.”
The case came up for trial before Chief A L Obisesan, the Chief President of the Customary Court, At the hearing parties called their witnesses and tendered some documentary exhibits, including
-
i
Exh A that is a certified copy of the proceedings in suit No. CV/96/72 between the present defendant, as plaintiff, and the present plaintiff, as defendant over the land in dispute.
-
ii
Exh. A1 a Plan used in exh A
-
iii
Exh. B, that is a copy of the proceedings in the Native Court Lands II suit No. 61/53
-
iv
Exh C Document of Gift of Land by plaintiffs father to the defendant.
-
v
Exh D part of the proceedings including findings in suit No. 61/53
-
vi
Exh E Land Agreement dated 16th day of June, 1939, and made between the plaintiff’s father and the defendant.
-
vii
Exh E1 another Document on Free Gift of Land dated 26th day of March, 1953 and made between the plaintiff’s family and the defendant.
-
viii
Exh F copy of proceedigns in the Native Court of Appeal in Appeal No. 236/54 of the 11th of May, 1954.
After considering all the oral and documentary evidence before him as well as the addresses of counsel on both sides, the learned Chief President found for the defendant and dismissed the plaintiff’s case On the documentary evidence before the court, he held:
-
a
that Exhs A A1, B, and D do not throw any light on this case and do not help the plaintiff since they are evidence in other cases not related to the present case so they have no evidential value in the case in hand;
-
b
that exhibits A A1, B and F were merely used to test the veracity of witnesses and so do not become evidence in this case and cannot be used in writing the judgmente
-
c
that exhibits C E and E1 do not relate to the same parcel of land but that each relates to one of the three parcels of land owned and possessed by the defendant.
The plaintiff appealed to the High Court, Fakayode, C J dismissed the appeal. His further appeal to the Court of Appeal, Ibadan division, was dismissed by Sulu Gambari JCA, Omo and Onu JJCA concurring. The plaintiff had leave of the Court of Appeal to appeal to this Court. It ought to be mentioned that the Court of Appeal virtually rested the appeal on that well known principle of great antiquity and veneration that an appellate court ought not to interfere with concurrent findings of facts and judgments by two lower courts, unless special circumstances are shown to establish that it is in the interest of justice to do so. As it was not persuaded that there were any such special circumstances, it dismissed the appeal
Having, however, been granted leave by the Court of Appeal, the plaintiff (hereinafter called the appellant) has appealed further to this Court.
