AMOS ADEBAYO V. KWASI KARIKARI ADUSEI & JAMES ADJEI (2003)

Background

Amos Adebayo instituted proceedings before the High Court of Benue State, sitting at Gboko, concerning the ownership and administration of Gboko International Nursery and Primary School. In his amended statement of claim, he sought a declaration that he was the sole proprietor of the school, an order for an audit of its finances from January 1995 until judgment, and an order directing the defendants to refund any monies that had not been properly accounted for.

The defendants, Kwasi Karikari Adusei and James Adjei, denied the claim and filed a counter-claim. They asserted that they were founders of the school and sought a declaration that they were joint owners. They also sought a declaration that Adebayo was merely a nominal proprietor and their employee, together with orders for accounts, delivery of school property, and an injunction restraining Adebayo from interfering with the administration of the school.

After hearing the evidence, the trial Judge concluded that neither side had proved exclusive ownership, but that the evidence suggested joint ownership. The Judge nevertheless declined to declare joint ownership because neither party, in the Judge’s view, had sought that precise relief. Instead, the court entered a non-suit in respect of both the claim and the counter-claim. Adebayo appealed, while the defendants filed a cross-appeal.

Issues

1. Whether the trial court was entitled to order a non-suit without first inviting counsel to address it on the desirability of that order, and whether the discretion to non-suit was properly exercised.
2. Whether the evidence, considered as a whole, established Adebayo’s sole proprietorship of the school or justified the trial court’s conclusion that the school was jointly owned.
3. Whether the decision of the trial court was contrary to the weight of the oral and documentary evidence.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that where findings of fact or the weight of evidence are challenged, an appellate court must examine whether the trial court properly perceived the evidence, accepted or rejected evidence on a correct understanding, assessed its probative value, weighed the evidence on both sides, and reached a conclusion in accordance with the balance of probabilities. Although evaluation of evidence is principally the function of a trial court, the Court of Appeal may intervene and re-evaluate the evidence where the trial court has failed to evaluate it properly or has evaluated it at all only inadequately.

The court emphasised that evidence must be considered in its totality. A judge is not entitled to select isolated portions of a witness’s testimony or a document while ignoring other portions that explain or qualify the selected passage. In a civil case, the evidence on each side must be placed on the imaginary scale of justice and weighed according to quality and probative value, rather than the number of witnesses called.

The Court further held that the burden on a claimant seeking a declaratory remedy remains proof on the balance of probabilities under sections 135 to 137 of the Evidence Act 1990. Facts admitted in pleadings require no further proof under section 75 of the Evidence Act. The defendants’ admission that they recognised Adebayo as the proprietor of the school was therefore material and binding.

On admissibility, the court restated that relevance, rather than proof of proper custody, is the primary test. Once relevant evidence is admitted, questions concerning custody affect the weight to be attached to it, not its admissibility. However, documents admitted in such circumstances must be assessed cautiously.

Court Findings

The appellate court found that the documentary evidence strongly supported Adebayo’s case. Exhibits 1 and 2, being applications to establish and equip the school, were completed and submitted in Adebayo’s name. Exhibit 3 recorded the Ministry of Education’s approval. There was no comparable evidence that the respondents had applied for or obtained official approval to establish the school.

The court also considered the respondents’ police statements, exhibits 6A and 6B, in which they described themselves as teachers engaged by Adebayo. Their applications for employment, letters of appointment, and letters accepting those appointments—exhibits 10, 10A, 10B, 10C, 10D and 10E—were inconsistent with their claim that they were co-owners. The evidence showed that an earlier school operation had been declared illegal and closed, after which Adebayo undertook the formal process of establishing and registering the school in dispute and supplied the funds required for its operation.

The trial Judge had relied on selected portions of the evidence of PW3 and PW6 and on selected passages in exhibits 18, 18A and 18B to infer joint ownership. The Court of Appeal held that this approach was erroneous. Read as a whole, PW6’s evidence indicated that Adebayo was the proprietor and financier, while the respondents contributed professional or teaching services. Similarly, the police statements, when read in their entirety, supported rather than defeated Adebayo’s claim. The word “proprietor” means a person having the legal right or exclusive title to a thing and is ordinarily synonymous with owner.

The court also condemned the non-suit. A non-suit is a final decision that no party has succeeded, while preserving the claimant’s right to bring another action on the same subject matter. It is discretionary and must be exercised cautiously, judicially and judiciously. Before making such an order, the trial court must hear the parties or their counsel on its propriety and desirability. The failure to do so ordinarily requires the non-suit to be set aside, unless the evidence and applicable law make a non-suit the only possible order.

Conclusion

The appeal was allowed and the judgment of the High Court in Suit No. GHC/68/96 was set aside. Judgment was entered for Adebayo in the terms of his amended statement of claim, including the declaration that he was the sole proprietor of Gboko International Nursery and Primary School and the consequential financial reliefs claimed. The respondents’ cross-appeal was dismissed, and costs of N5,000 were awarded against them.

Significance

The decision illustrates the central importance of comprehensive evidence evaluation in civil litigation. A trial court must reconcile oral testimony with documentary evidence and cannot base a decisive finding on isolated extracts. It also confirms that documentary evidence relating to official registration, employment and ownership may outweigh oral assertions about informal founding arrangements. Finally, the case provides an important procedural safeguard concerning non-suit orders: because a non-suit can deprive a party of an immediate judgment while preserving the possibility of future litigation, the affected parties must ordinarily be heard before the order is made.