Review of Kalio v. Benjamin (2018) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1641) 38.
Review of Kalio v. Benjamin (2018) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1641) 38. Author: Yemi Gomes, Ayodele Adeyemo, Yinka Ajose-Adeogun, and Feyisikemi Adeagbo. Publisher: Sofunde Osakwe Ogundipe & Belgore Decision: The Supreme Court, sitting as a full court, in a unanimous decision, dismissed the appeal. In resolving the sub-issue, the Court considered the effect of section 20 of the Land Instruments (Preparation and Registration) Law, Cap. 74, of the 1999, Laws of Rivers State together with Item 23 of the Exclusive Legislative List and the provisions of sections 4(3) and (5) of the 1999 Constitution as amended. In this regard, the Court pointed out that the State Houses of Assembly are precluded and prohibited from enacting any laws on evidence law and/or admissibility of evidence in the proceedings before the law courts in the Federal Republic. Hence, the Court considered the enactment of section 20 of the Land Instruments (Preparation and Registration) Law, Cap. 74, of the 1999 Laws of Rivers State by the Rivers State House of Assembly, as a clear act of legislative trespass into the exclusive legislative terrain of the National Assembly. The Court emphasised that an unregistered “registrable land” instrument is admissible in evidence to prove, not only the payment and receipt of the purchase price, but also the equitable interest of the purchaser in the subject land. See Okoye v. Dumez (Nig.) Ltd (1985) 1 NWLR (Pt. 4) 783; Obijuru v. Ozims (1985) 2 NWLR (Pt. 6) 167 etc. In considering the admissibility/inadmissibility of documents made inadmissible/admissible by state laws or rules of court, the case of Dunalin Investment Ltd v. BGL Plc & Anor (2016) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1544) 262, is instructive. In that case, the Court of Appeal considered the issue whether documents not frontloaded, as provided by the Lagos High Court Rules, are inadmissible. In resolving this issue, the Court noted that parties to an action are bound to obey and comply with the rules of court. But, it pointed out that it is the Evidence Act, and not the rules of court, that governs the admissibility of evidence. Hence, since there is no provision in the Evidence Act that states that a document which is not front-loaded is inadmissible, the rejection of the pleaded and potentially-vital document because it was not front-loaded was wrongful and would cause a miscarriage of justice. See Ogboru v. Udiaghan (2011) 17 NWLR
Review of Kalio v. Benjamin (2018) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1641) 38. Read More »