CORAM

PARTIES

DAUDA YUGUDA APPELLANTS

RESPONDENTS

AREA(S) OF LAW

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Plaintiff/Appellant commenced this action in the High Court of Taraba State sitting in Gembu, claiming a declaration that the acts of the Defendant in building a house on the Plaintiff’s land despite protest and warning amounted to acts of trespass, an order of the court vacating/ejecting the Defendant from the Plaintiff’s land, perpetual injunction, N1, 000,000.00(One Million Naira) as general damages for trespass among other reliefs. The Respondent counterclaimed a declaration of title over the disputed land, perpetual injunction restraining the Plaintiff and his privies of whatever description from further trespass or interference with the possession and ownership rights of the Counter claimant an order setting aside or revoking any allocation or approval over the disputed land as same is null and void and not in accordance with the law and due process. After considering the evidence led by both parties and addresses of learned counsel, the lower court dismissed the claim of the Appellant and the counterclaim of the Respondent. Dissatisfied with the trial court’s judgement, the Appellant, pursuant to an order granting extension of time has lodged the instant appeal.

HELD

Appeal Dismissed

ISSUES

• Whether the trial court’s interpretation of section 9 of the Land Use Act was right when it held that the only evidence of a grant of Right of Occupancy is the certificate of Occupancy and that Exhibit D not being a Certificate of Occupancy is not evidence of a grant of Right Occupancy (Distilled from Grounds (i) and (ii) • Whether the payment of allocation fees for the disputed land, the issuance of Exhibit D and the taking of possession of the land by the Appellant conferred any interest in law or equity on the Appellant. (Distilled from Grounds (iii) (iv) & (viii)  • Whether the trial court was right when it dismissed the Appellant’s case for non payment of compensation. (Distilled from ground (vi) • Whether the identity of the disputed land was in issue at the trial court and if same was, whether the Appellant did not discharge the burden of proving the identity and extent of the disputed land. (Distilled from ground (vii)  • Whether the trial court was right when it held that from 1992 when Exhibit D was issued till 2009 the Appellant did nothing on the land. (Distilled from ground (v).

RATIONES DECIDENDI

CASES CITED

STATUTES REFERRED TO

Land Registration Law Cap 75 Laws of Taraba State 1997Land Use Act 5 Cap 15 Laws of The Federation of Nigeria 2004

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT