Judgment
UWANI MUSA ABBA AJI, J.S.C. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): The 1st and 2nd Respondents as Plaintiffs, being owners of the properties situate at plots 20B and 20C Dawson lane, Benin City, respectively sued the Appellant and the 1st Respondent’s mother as the 1st and 2nd Defendants respectively. They claimed that according to Bini native law and custom, they in herited the properties from their late father in 1978. They both reside in America but the properties were managed by the 3rd Respondent who was resident in Benin.
That on 19/6/2004, the Appellant went to the properties and forcefully ejected the tenants therein and demolished the building on plot 20B and destroyed the economic trees on plot 20C. The Appellant however claimed to have bought plot 20B on 18/6/2004 from one Margaret Ehimwenma, the mother of the 1st Respondent with the consent and authority of the 1st Respondent. The Respondents alleged that the deed of transfer was forged. The trial Court granted the claims of the Respondents and dismissed the Appellant’s counter- claim. The Appellant appealed and lost at the lower Court, hence this appeal.
These issues for determination were distilled by the Appellant thus: 1. Whether the Court below had any legal authority to dismiss the appeal of the Appellant following an omission of a vital document from the record of appeal transmitted to the Court below. 2. Whether the sale of the property in dispute to the Appellant by the 2nd Defendant can be rendered invalid in the absence of a written authority from the 1st Respondent to act on his behalf. 3.
Whether having regards to the admitted facts by the Respondents’ witnesses and the affidavit of Gentle Ehimwenma in support of the Appellant’s case, whether the Court of Appeal was right when it held that the Appellant’s failure to call Gentle as a witness was fatal to his case.
The Respondents on their part also formulated 3 issues for determination of this appeal as follows: 1. Whether having regard to the pleadings, burden of proof and evidence placed before the lower Court, the findings of fact made by the two lower Courts ought to be disturbed by this Honourable Court. 2. Whether the omission of the lower Court to make a specific pronouncement on the application of judicial authority to the facts of the case under consideration occasioned any miscarriage of justice to the Appellant. 3.
