Legalpedia Citation: (2023-06) Legalpedia 30971 (CA)

In the Court of Appeal

KADUNA JUDICIAL DIVISION

Tue Jun 13, 2023

Suit Number: CA/KN/174/2018

CORAM

TUNDW OYEBANJI AWOTOYE JCA

JAMES GAMBO ABUNDAGA JCA

KENNETH IKECHUKWU AMADI JCA

PARTIES

1. ABUBAKAR M. SADI
2. AUWALU MUHAMMAD SURAJO
3. SHEHU IDRIS
4. KABIRU NASIDI
5. IBRAHIM BADAMASI
6. MUHAMMAD TUKUR
7. SULEIMAN INUWA

APPELLANTS

1. KABIRU USMAN KULO
2. ALHAJI ALI
3. MINISTRY OF LAND & PHYSICAL PLANNING KANO
4. FEDERAL MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT, HOUSING & URBAN PLANNING
5. ALHAJI BAKO FEGI

RESPONDENTS

AREA(S) OF LAW

APPEAL, EVIDENCE, LAND, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Appellants (Plaintiffs at trial) claimed to be the legal and rightful owners of a large portion of farm land measuring 116.0m x 40.0m lying and situate at Unguwar Rinji Ja’en quarters’, adjacent to the existing cementary, Gwaie Local Government, Kano. They claim to have inherited the land from their parents about 40 years ago.

The same land was allocated to the 1st and 2nd defendants by the 3rd and 4th defendants. This necessitated the action at the trial court where the plaintiffs sought for the allocation to be declared a nullity as they also sought other reliefs.

After hearing the parties learned trial Judge entered judgment against the Plaintiffs for the reason that they failed to prove their ownership in connection with the said farmland.

Dissatisfied by the decision, the Appellants made the instant appeal.

 

HELD

Appeal dismissed

ISSUES

Whether the learned trial judge of the court below was right in arriving at a conclusion that the appellants failed to prove their claim beyond preponderance of doubt?

Whether the learned trial judge of the court below was right in arriving at a conclusion that the appellants did not establish any of the methods of proving title to land?

 

RATIONES DECIDENDI

TITLE TO LAND – WAYS OF PROVING TITLE TO LAND

It is the duty of a plaintiff claiming title to land to show how he or his predecessor-in-title acquired title to the land. This he has to show;

(a.) by traditional history or evidence or

(b.) by documents of title or

(c.) by various acts of ownership and numerous and positive and extending over a length of time as to warrant the ownership or

(d.) by acts of long enjoyment and possession of the land or

(e.) by proof of possession of adjacent land in circumstances which render it probable that the owner of such the adjacent land would in addition be the owner of the land in dispute. See AIYEOLA v. PEDRO (2014) 13 NWLR PART 1424 Page 409; AJIBULU v. AJAYI (2004) 11 NWLR (Pt. 885) 473-474; OGUNLEYE v. ONI (1990) 2NWLR (PT. 135) 745.

I have examined the evidence adduced by the plaintiffs through their witnesses. They claimed to have inherited the land in dispute through their parents about 40years ago. They failed to show how their parents acquired title in the land as required by the law. See AJIBULU v. AJAYI (supra); PIARO v. TENALO (1976) 12SC. 31. They merely stated very blandly that they inherited the land without supplying the detail. This is insufficient.

In PIARO v. TENALO & ANOR (supra) a similar situation arose. ANDREW OTUTU OBASEKI (JSC)had this to say on it:

“It is now settled law that there are 5 ways in which ownership of land may be proved and only two of the 5 methods were adopted by the respondents in this case. They are:

1) Proof by traditional evidence (Abinabina v. Chief Enyimadu (1953) AC 207at 215-216); and

(2) Proof by acts of ownership. This is normally provided by acts of person or persons claiming the land such as selling, leasing, renting out all or part of the land or farming on it or on a portion of it or otherwise utilizing the land beneficially; all evidence of ownership provided they extended over a sufficient length of time and are numerous and positive enough to warrant the inference that he is the true owner, Ekpo v. Ita, 11 NLR 68 at 69.

We find however in the pleadings and the evidence a total absence of facts about (1) the founding of Bomu village in general and Kporo, the land in dispute, in particular; (2) the persons who founded the land and exercised original acts of ownership, and (3) the persons who have held title or on whom title has devolved in respect of the land since the founding before the 1st plaintiff/respondent acquired control of the land on behalf of the community. All these facts which are necessary for the proper determination of the issue raised are not provided by the sweeping assertion that “the land is communal land of Bomu people”. This leaves the traditional evidence in the air and it is fatal to plaintiffs’ claim (See F.M. Alade v. Lawrence Awo (1975) 4 SC 215 at229.” – Per T. O. Awotoye, JCA

PROOF – FURTHER PROOF WHEN TITLE IS CLAIMED TO BE GOTTEN THROUGH INHERITANCE

The law is settled that, it is not enough to allege that the land was inherited from a particular ancestor or person. There must be proof further how that ancestor or person came to have title vested in him. It must be pleaded and proved; how their parents became the owner of the land in dispute which they failed to do, see Mogaji v. Cadbury Nigeria Ltd. (1985) 2 NWLR (Pt.7) 393 at 429.  – Per K. I. Amadi, JCA

 

CASES CITED

STATUTES REFERRED TO

1. Land Use Act 1978
2. Evidence Act, 2011 

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT