Background
The respondent sued the appellants in the High Court of Oyo State, Ile-Ife, claiming damages and an injunction for the destruction and reaping of palm trees on farmland occupied by the 1st appellant. The occupation was initially oral and was later recorded in a document dated 28 December 1964, titled “Farm Cultivation Agreement” and admitted as Exhibit 1. The High Court entered judgment for the respondent. The Court of Appeal, Ibadan, dismissed the appellants’ appeal, holding that Exhibit 1 was not a registrable instrument. The appellants appealed further to the Supreme Court on one original ground and included five additional grounds in their brief without obtaining leave.
Issues
- Whether the original ground of appeal, complaining of the admission of inadmissible evidence, was a competent ground of law.
- Whether the additional grounds of appeal could be argued when they had not been properly filed and no leave had been obtained.
- Whether the unregistered Exhibit 1 was inadmissible under the Land Instruments Registration Law of Oyo State.
Ratio Decidendi
A complaint concerning wrongful admission of evidence, the absence of admissible evidence, or the legal interpretation of a document is a ground of law. Its classification depends on the substance of the ground and its particulars, not on the label assigned by the appellant.
Additional grounds of appeal filed or argued without an application for, and an order granting, leave are incompetent. However, where at least one competent ground has been properly filed, the appeal remains competent and may be determined on that ground.
A registrable instrument is a document affecting land by which a grantor confers, transfers, limits, charges, or extinguishes a right, title, or interest in land. Exhibit 1 was merely a memorandum of a customary-law transaction and did not transfer or convey an interest in land. It was therefore not a registrable instrument and its lack of registration did not render it inadmissible.
Court Findings
The Supreme Court held that grounds 2 to 6 were incompetent because they were additional grounds filed without leave and, in substance, raised questions of fact or mixed law and fact. Some were also defective for alleging both error of law and misdirection in the same ground.
Ground 1 was filed within time and properly raised a question of law concerning the admissibility of Exhibit 1. The Court agreed with the Court of Appeal that the document was a “Farm Cultivation Agreement,” not a lease or other registrable land instrument. Its provisions, including the payment of ishakole and the customary-law forfeiture provision, indicated a customary tenancy and acknowledgment of the respondent’s father’s title.
The Court consequently found no error in the admission or use of Exhibit 1. The appeal was unanimously dismissed, with costs of N1,000 awarded to the respondent. The judgments of the High Court and Court of Appeal were confirmed.
Conclusion
The appeal failed. Exhibit 1 was admissible notwithstanding its non-registration, the additional grounds were struck out, and the decisions below were upheld.
Significance
The decision clarifies the distinction between grounds of law and grounds of fact or mixed law and fact in appeals from the Court of Appeal to the Supreme Court. It also confirms that a document recording a customary-law tenancy is not necessarily a registrable instrument merely because it relates to the use of land; registration depends on whether the document purports to confer, transfer, limit, charge, or extinguish an interest in land.
Counsel:
- Appellants absent and unrepresented
- J. A. Tijani - for the Respondent