JEGA V. MAGAJI (2021)

Case Title and Citation

Full name: Jega v. Magaji

Official citation: (2021) LPELR-56296(CA)

Court Name and Bench

Court: Court of Appeal (Sokoto Division)

Judges: Saidu Tanko Hussaini ,Mohammed Baba Idris Andmohammed Danjuma

Date of Judgement

December 02, 2021.

Parties Invovled

Appellant: ALHAJI ABDU ABUBAKAR KAURA JEGA

Respondent: ALHAJI ABDULLAHI MUSA MAGAJI

Facts of the Case

The appeal arose from the decision of the Kebbi State High Court.

The Respondent (Claimant at the trial court) alleged that in January 1988, he bought a parcel of land from the Appellant for ₦3,200. The land, located along Sokoto Road near the School of Health Technology, Jega, measured about 182 feet in length, 29 feet in width on the southern side, and 25 feet on the northern side. A simple sale agreement was written and signed by both parties and their witnesses, after which the Respondent took possession and had been exercising ownership over the land. Later, the Appellant claimed ownership of the same land, asserting that the Kebbi State Government had acquired and reallocated it to him. He allegedly trespassed onto the land and continued to claim it as his. The Respondent filed a suit on 21st November 2019, seeking declarations, damages, and an injunction. After hearing both parties and their final written addresses, the trial court ruled in favor of the Respondent.

Dissatisfied with the decision, the Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal.

Issues Raised 

The appeal was determined on the following issues viz:

1. Whether the matter before the Court below is competent and the Court having the jurisdiction and competence to entertain same.
2. Whether the Respondent as Claimant before the Court below established his case so as to be entitled to the reliefs sought.
3. Whether the Court below properly evaluated the evidence before it as to arrive at the decision reached.

Argument of the Parties

Appellant

1. Whether the matter before the Court below is competent and the Court having the jurisdiction and competence to entertain same. Distilled from Ground 2 of the Grounds of Appeal.
2. Whether the Respondent as Claimant before the Court below established his case so as to be entitled to the reliefs sought.
3. Whether the Court below properly evaluated the evidence before it as to arrive at the decision reached.

Respondent

1. Whether the matter before the Court below is competent and the Court having the jurisdiction and competence to entertain same.
2. Whether the Respondent as the Claimant before the Court below established his case as to be entitled to the reliefs sought.
3. Whether the Court below properly evaluated the evidence before it as to arrive to the decision reached.

Judgment/Final Decision

On the whole, the Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the trial Court in its entirety. Consequently, this appeal was dismissed for lacking in merit.

Legal Reasoning/Ratio Decidendi

Appeal – Issues for Determination (Relation to Grounds of Appeal)

Issues for determination must be framed from the grounds of appeal properly before the court. Any issue not so formulated will go to no issue and will be struck out. See Husseni v. Mohammed (2014) LPELR-24216 (SC).

Appeal – Issues for Determination (Tying Issues to Grounds of Appeal)

It is desirable for counsel to identify the specific grounds of appeal from which issues are distilled, as this assists the appellate court in linking issues to their corresponding grounds.

However, failure to do so is not fatal. Such omission may amount to poor drafting but does not affect the competence of the brief. See Nigerian Ports Plc v. B.P. Pte Ltd (2012) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1333) 454; Hein Nebelung K.G. v. UBA Plc (2012) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1326) 357; Taiga v. Moses-Taiga (2012) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1308) 219.

Practice and Procedure –Abuse of Court Process

Abuse of court process arises from improper use of judicial process to interfere with the administration of justice. Examples include filing multiple suits on the same subject matter, instituting actions simultaneously in different courts, or pursuing reliefs in a second action that could be obtained in the first. See Okorocha v. PDP (2014) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1406) 213; Saraki v. Kotoye (1992) 9 NWLR (Pt. 204) 156; Ogoejeofo v. Ogoejeofo (2006) 3 NWLR (Pt. 996) 206.

Land Law – Identity of Land

In a claim for declaration of title, the identity of the land must be clearly ascertained. It becomes an issue only where the defendant disputes the area or location of the land. See Ezeudu v. Obiagwu (1986) 2 NWLR (Pt. 21) 208.

Action – Pleadings

Parties are bound by their pleadings; they cannot depart from or contradict them.

Evidence – Oral and Documentary Evidence

Where there is conflict in oral evidence, documentary evidence serves as a reliable guide to the truth. Documents are vital as they are not prone to falsehood. See BFI Group Corporation v. B.P.E. (2012) LPELR-9339 (SC); Olujinle v. Adeagbo (1988) 2 NWLR (Pt. 75) 238.

Appeal – Interference with Findings of Fact

An appellate court will not disturb findings of fact except where the trial court misapplied evidence, ignored vital documents, or reached a perverse conclusion. See Nwosu v. Board of Customs & Excise (1988) 5 NWLR (Pt. 93) 225; Nneji v. Chukwu (1996) 10 NWLR (Pt. 378) 265; Ebba v. Ogodo (1984) 1 SCNLR 372.

Evidence – Evaluation of Evidence

It is the duty of the trial court to evaluate evidence and ascribe probative value. The appellate court will not interfere unless the trial court failed in this duty. However, where the issue relates purely to documentary evidence, the appellate court can evaluate it. See Ogbechie v. Onochie (1998) 1 NWLR (Pt. 470) 370.

Action – Reply

A reply is unnecessary where it merely denies allegations in the defence. It is only proper where it raises new matters or confessions and avoidances not covered in the defence. See Obot v. CBN (1993) 8 NWLR (Pt. 310) 140.

Evidence – Speculation

Courts must not act on speculation or guesswork but on concrete evidence properly before them.

Land Law – Revocation of Right of Occupancy

A governor may revoke a right of occupancy, but such revocation must strictly comply with the provisions of the law.

Evidence – Burden of Proof in Land Cases

In a claim for declaration of title, once the plaintiff proves a prima facie case of ownership, the burden shifts to the defendant to prove a better title. See Okoye v. Nwankwo (2014) LPELR-23172 (SC); Federal Mortgage Finance Ltd v. Ekpo (2004) 2 NWLR (Pt. 856) 100; Ogwule Ankpa Agatu Cooperative Group v. N.A.C.B. (1999) 2 NWLR (Pt. 590) 234.

Practice and Procedure – Appearance in Civil Suits

A plaintiff need not be physically present or testify personally in court, provided sufficient evidence is adduced to prove the case. See Western Publishing Co. Ltd v. Fayemi (2015) LPELR-24735 (CA).

Evidence – Written Statement on Oath

A written statement on oath becomes evidence only when the maker testifies and adopts it in court. Until then, it remains of no evidential value. See Onyia v. Mbiko (2014) LPELR-23028 (CA).

Evidence – Sworn Documents and Compliance with Evidence Act

Not all sworn documents must strictly comply with sections 117 and 118 of the Evidence Act. Witness statements on oath are distinct from affidavits and need not meet the same formal requirements. See Lambert v. Okujagu (2015) All FWLR (Pt. 808) 552.

Evidence – Unsigned Document

An unsigned document has no legal effect; it is worthless and cannot be acted upon. See Omega Bank (Nig.) Plc v. O.B.C. Ltd (2005) LPELR-2636 (SC).

Appeal – Fresh Issues on Appeal

A party cannot raise a fresh issue on appeal without first seeking and obtaining the leave of the court. Any such issue raised without leave will be struck out. See Uzodinma v. Ihedioha (2020) LPELR-50260 (SC).

REFERECE(S):

1.  Jega v. Magaji: (2021) LPELR-56296(CA)
2. https://primsol.lawpavilion.com/reader?court=appeal&suit_number=CA%2FS%2F10%2F2021&type=judgment&title=JEGA%20v.%20MAGAJI accessed 30 October, 2025.