Legalpedia Citation: (2024-08) Legalpedia 27260 (CA)

In the Court of Appeal

HOLDEN AT YOLA

Tue Aug 6, 2024

Suit Number: CA/YL/145/2023

CORAM

Ita George Mbaba Justice of the Court of Appeal

Patricia Ajuma Mahmoud Justice of the Court of Appeal

Peter Oyinkenimiemi Affen Justice of the Court of Appeal

PARTIES

ABDULMALIK M. GIDADO

APPELLANTS

ALH. IBRAHIM LAWAN

RESPONDENTS

AREA(S) OF LAW

LAND LAW, EVIDENCE, BURDEN OF PROOF, POWER OF ATTORNEY, CUSTOMARY CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY, APPEAL, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The appellant, Abdulmalik M. Gidado, appealed the decision of the Adamawa State High Court, which dismissed his claim for a declaration of title over a disputed land. He had sought reliefs including a declaration of title, damages for trespass, and an injunction against the respondent, Alh. Ibrahim Lawan. The appellant claimed that the land in question belonged to him and that it had been unjustifiably taken by the respondent. However, the trial court ruled that the appellant had failed to prove his case, noting that the land had already been sold by the appellant’s lawful attorney, PW2 (Ibrahim Bakari), through a valid power of attorney.

The appellant contended that his attorney did not have the authority to sell the land, but the trial court found that the evidence presented, including the sale agreements and a Customary Certificate of Occupancy, indicated that the land had been lawfully transferred to the respondent.

HELD

The appeal was dismissed. The Court of Appeal held that the trial court was right in dismissing the appellant’s claim, as the appellant failed to prove that his attorney did not have the authority to sell the land. The respondent’s ownership was confirmed through valid documentation, including a Customary Certificate of Occupancy. The trial court’s judgment was affirmed, and costs of N200,000 were awarded against the appellant.

ISSUES

1. Whether the appellant successfully proved that the disputed land had not been sold by his lawful attorney?
2. Whether the trial court erred by dismissing the appellant’s claim for a declaration of title?
3. Whether the failure of the trial court to resolve certain issues caused a miscarriage of justice?
4. Whether the Customary Certificate of Occupancy was adequately pleaded and considered by the trial court?

RATIONES DECIDENDI

BURDEN OF PROOF –WHETHER THE APPELLANT PROVED THAT HIS ATTORNEY DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO SELL THE LAND

“The Court held that the appellant failed to discharge the burden of proof that the land had not been sold by his lawful attorney. The evidence, including the appellant’s admission that he granted a power of attorney and that many plots of land were sold by the attorney, indicated that the land in dispute was part of the property lawfully sold. The appellant could not provide credible evidence to the contrary.”

– Per ITA GEORGE MBABA, JCA,

DECLARATION OF TITLE-WHETHER THE APPELLANT PROVED THAT HIS ATTORNEY DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO SELL THE LAND

“The Court reaffirmed that the burden rests on the party seeking a declaration of title to prove the identity and ownership of the land in dispute. The appellant failed to provide clear evidence of the location and size of the land, and his case was further weakened by contradictions in his testimony. The respondent, on the other hand, had provided documentary evidence, including a Customary Certificate of Occupancy, supporting his ownership. 

– Per ITA GEORGE MBABA, JCA

MISDIRECTION BY TRIAL COURT –WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT’S FAILURE TO CONSIDER ALL ISSUES CAUSED A MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE

“The Court found that the trial court had adequately addressed the issues necessary for determining the case. While the appellant argued that the trial court failed to resolve certain issues, the Court of Appeal noted that the trial court had summarized the relevant issues and ruled on them, causing no miscarriage of justice.

– Per ITA GEORGE MBABA, JCA

ADMISSIBILITY AND PLEADING OF CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY –WHETHER THE CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY WAS PROPERLY CONSIDERED

“The Court ruled that the Customary Certificate of Occupancy tendered by the respondent was properly admitted and considered by the trial court. The trial court had found that the certificate covered the land in dispute and that the appellant’s arguments challenging its validity were unsubstantiated.

– Per ITA GEORGE MBABA, JCA

CASES CITED

STATUTES REFERRED TO

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGEMENT