The plaintiff sued the defendant before the Grade I Area Court, Foron-Fan, Heipang, sitting at Foron. Plateau State, claiming the recovery of a piece of farmland situate in Kamang. He stated his case as follows:
After hearing both sides to the dispute the trial court inspected the disputed farmland. It reviewed the evidence adduced and entered Judgment for the plaintiff. The defendant appealed to the Plateau State Customary Court of Appeal which reviewed the evidence presented in the trial court, and allowed the appeal in favour of the defendant wherein it stated:
-
“It is our candid view that based on the facts of this case, the trial court entirely failed to advert its mind to the case as essentially argued by both parties. It is our candid view that if the trial court had properly directed itself to the main issue of the purported gift or loan to the defendant's grand-father by the plaintiffs father, it would have found as a fact that, the plaintiff failed to establish his claim. And even in the alternative argument put up by the learned counsel to the appellant on the Presumption of gift (which we do not believe) the plaintiffs case must equally have failed. And guided by the principles in Oniah (supra) a Supreme Court decision, it is our conclusion that all the reasons, given by the court below for finding in favour of the plaintiff were founded on nothing but speculative, and created probabilities."
Aggrieved by the Customary Court of Appeal decision, the plaintiff lodged an appeal against it in the Court of Appeal.
At the hearing of the appeal the Court of Appeal struck out the appellant's appeal to that court on the ground that all the grounds of appeal did not raise questions of customary law contrary to section 224(1) of the Constitution of the federal Republic of Nigeria. 1979.
Being dissatisfied, the appellant further appealed to the Supreme Court.
