CORAM
PARTIES
1.ADAMAWA STATE URBAN PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY2.THE COMMISSIONER, ADAMAWA STATE MINISTRY OF LAND AND SURVEY 3. MINISTRY OF LAND AND SURVEY, ADAMAWA STATE4. ATTORNEY-GENERAL, ADAMAWA STATE
1. UMAR BAKARI 2. YUSUF ISA DAMILU3. IBRAHIM ISA DAMILU4. ABUBAKAR ISA DAMILU
AREA(S) OF LAW
Not Available
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The 1st Respondent brought an action over a piece of land lying and situate at Wuro Jabbe, Yola South Local Government measuring 150 ft x 100 ft before the High Court of Adamawa State, wherein he sought declaratory reliefs that the Respondent is entitled to the land in dispute; that the demolition of the Respondent’s 2 flats of 3 bedrooms and shops, a borehole, a production hall with 2 staff rooms and a generator room built by him thereon is illegal; general and special damages; cost of litigation or the alternative reliefs. The 1st Respondent case is that he bought 3 pieces of land measuring 50ft x 100ft each from the 2nd, 3rd and 4th Respondents which the Respondents claimed traditional title to the land in dispute through inheritance. The 1st Respondent was said to have erected a structure on the land in dispute and spent over N12 Million Naira on the structure to which the Appellants caused the structures to be demolished making out that the necessary notices were given in line with the Town Planning Laws. At the close of the trial, judgment was delivered in favour of the 1st Respondent and the 2nd – 4th Respondents. Aggrieved by the said judgment the Appellants appealed to this court.
HELD
Appeal Dismissed
ISSUES
Whether the 1st Respondent has proved his case to entitle him to the declaratory reliefs granted him by the lower court. Whether the trial court’s failure to properly evaluate the evidence before giving judgment to the Respondents has not occasioned a miscarriage of justice.
RATIONES DECIDENDI
EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE –WHAT DOES EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE ENTAILS?
“Evaluation of evidence entails the trial judge examining all the evidence before him before making his findings. This is achieved by placing all the evidence on an imaginary scale to see which side appears to outweigh the other. See, Ecobank Plc Vs. Mohammed (2014) LPELR – 23990 (CA) PP. 24 – 25, Paras. B – C, Abdulkarim &Ors Vs. Anazodo & Anor (2006) LPELR – 7583 (CA) PP. 18 – 20, Paras. B – C, Lafia Local Government Vs. Executive Government Nasarawa State & Ors (2012) LPELR – 7583 (CA) 18 – 20, Paras. B – Cand Ayala Vs. Daniel & Ors (2019) LPELR – 47184 (CA) PP. 27 – 29, Paras. D – C”. –
ONUS OF PROOF – ON WHOM LIES THE ONUS OF PROOF
“The trial court heard and saw the witnesses, compared evidence adduced by the parties, weighed same on the imaginary scale before arriving at its decision. The trial court was in a better position to assess first-hand the evidence adduced before the court. For instance, the Appellants who alleged that compensation had been paid to the 2nd – 4th Respondents in respect of the land in dispute did not lead evidence to establish their contention and to prove that the land in dispute is a government layout. There was no proof of miscarriage of justice as alleged against the trial court. It is trite that he who asserts/alleges the affirmative has the onus of proof. The trial court reviewed the evidence before it, considered the totality of the evidence on the issues raised in order to determine whether the evidence supports a finding of fact, which the party adducing the evidence seeks the trial court to make. If compensation was paid, there should be evidence in its support, also if the land in dispute is a government layout there should also be evidence to that effect. The Appellants failed to show or highlight where and how the trial court failed in its duties. –
TITLE TO LAND – WAYS OF PROVING TITLE TO LAND
“On whether the 1st Respondent proved his claim at the trial court, there are five ways of proving title to land, they are:
Traditional history.
Production of documents of title which must be authenticated.
Acts of ownership, selling, leasing or renting out all or part of the land or farming on part or a portion of it.
Acts of long possession and enjoyment of the land.
Proof of possession of connected on adjacent land in circumstances rendering it probable that the owner of such connected or adjacent land would in addition, be the owner of the land in dispute.
See, Idundun Vs. Okumagba (1976) LPELR – 1431 (SC) PP. 23 – 26, PARA. D; (1976) 9 – 10 SC 337, Arije Vs. Arije & Ors (2018) LPELR – 44193 (SC) P. 34, Paras. B – G, Iliya & Anor Vs. Lamu & Anor (2019) LPELR – 47048 (CA) PP. 19 – 20, Paras. D – B, Ayoola Vs. Odofin (1984) 11 SC 120 and Nkado Vs. Obiano (1997) 5 NWLR (PT. 503) 31. As rightly argued by the learned counsel to the 1st Respondent, proof of one of the ways is enough to establish title, proof of all five ways is not a requirement. –
CASES CITED
Not Available
STATUTES REFERRED TO
Not Available|