n Compulaw - 1st Indigenous Digital Law Library
Disable Preloader

CaseLaw

Sakati Vs. Bako & Anor (2015) CLR 6(c) (SC)

Judgement delivered on June 5th 2015

Brief

  • Concurrent finding of fact
  • Issues for determination
  • Proof
  • Burden of proof
  • Fresh issue on appeal

Facts

The parties herein had conflicting claims to fishing right over the fish pond called NYAWAL in Taraba State. When one Wakili Malue who was in charge of the affairs of Muri Emirate Council declined to settle the dispute the Respondents herein (as plaintiffs) took the matter to the Area Court No. 11 sitting at Jalingo, Taraba State. Part of the claim reads:

  • "... From there we went to Court in Kunini and reported the matter. Already the defendants have taken money from the people N1,000.00K so the Court directed that we be given our share too, so, the people brought N800,00K to the Court which was given to us; from there the Court told us to manage our portion of the pond and the defendant also to take charge of his portion, but when we put our people to manage our portion the defendant went and drove them away, because of this, I went to Court and complained and the Court asked the Defendant to withdraw his people. That is all my complaint."

In its judgment the Area Court, having reviewed the totality of the evidence led by the parties held:-

  • "In view of the above we are satisfied that the water in dispute (Nyawal) is the property of the plaintiffs Bako and Bawuro all of Kinini because they have established their title of the water before this Court because of this, therefore, we order the defendant to leave the water for the plaintiffs immediately and in addition he will refund to the plaintiffs all their process fess in Court.”

The defendant (now appellant) appealed the judgment of the Area Court to Upper Area Court sitting at Jalingo. In its judgment delivered on 2nd August 1990 the Upper Area Court found in favour of the Respondents, thus:

  • "It is my submission therefore that the trial Area Court decision hereby regards with the testimonies before it, was in a better position to see, watch and evaluate evidence before it. Based on the above reasons this honourable Court do hereby set aside the appeal of the appellant. The decision or judgment of the trial Area Court No. 2 Jalingo is hereby affirmed. All monies realized on the bond because of the Court order are to be refunded to the Respondents.”

    • Still not satisfied, the appellant appealed to the High Court of Taraba State sitting at Jalingo. The three-man panel of Judges led by the then Taraba State Hon. Chief Judge, dismissed the appeal in the following terms:

    • "On the whole we found no merit in this appeal and accordingly this appeal is hereby dismissed with cost at (N100.00) one hundred naira."

    The judgment dismissing the appeal was delivered on 13/2/92.

    On 7/2/95 the Court of Appeal sitting at Jos granted the appellant's trinity reliefs and extended time by 14 days for the appellant to appeal the judgment of the High Court in its appellate jurisdiction. On 16/2/95 the appellant filed a notice of appeal on three grounds of appeal.

    In the judgment delivered on 13/7/2000, the Court of Appeal in dismissing the appeal, held:

    • "In view of the foregoing, I have no hesitation in holding that the traditional evidence of the Respondents at the trial Court completely overwhelmed those of the Appellant, and were rightly accepted. This appeal therefore fails and is hereby dismissed with costs of N4,000.00 (four thousand naira) in favour of the Respondent."

    Aggrieved by the judgment of the Court below, appellant filed a notice of appeal to this Court.

Issues

  • 1
    Whether the Court of Appeal was right in affirming that asserting right of...
    • Read More