oniguguru.com

 BOLANTA & ANOR v. TOSIN NOVEL FIRMS LTD (2020) LPELR-52507(CA) "From the foregoing, it is clear that the parties, that is the 1st appellant, and the respondent both knew the land they were disputing its ownership or title thereto. The fact that different names were given to the parcel of land in dispute by the parties "GBEDUGBEDU OR EKUNKUN" is of no legal significance in the determination of who between the respondent and the 1st appellant has proved a better title to the said land. The conflict in the name(s) of the disputed land can easily be solved bearing in mind the principles of law espoused the case of Akiti vs Oyekunle (2005) All FWLR Pt. 776 P.570 @ 586, wherein, this Court propounded that: "It is apparent that in the instant case, that the land in dispute is known to all the parties even though it is being called by different names or described differently. The law is settled that where the identity of the land in dispute is known to the parties, the

 "A deponent of an affidavit in any proceeding before a Court of law is a witness in the matter. Section 115 (1) of the Evidence Act, 2011 enjoins the deponent as a witness, to depose to facts in an affidavit that "either of his own personal knowledge or from information which he believes to be true". It is not enough to set out in the preamble paragraphs of an affidavit for the deponent to restate the facts that he has been authorized either by his principal or employer, and the client to make the affidavit; and that he derived the facts averred in the affidavit in the course of his employment and/or from his personal knowledge and/or information generally. For every assertion in a specific averment the deponent, consistent with Section 115 (1), (3) & (4) of the Evidence Act, must disclose with particulars his source of information and belief. The counter-affidavit of Charles Jibuaku, Esq., a Legal Practitioner, is replete with obvious hearsay and unverifiable facts