ADAMU JATAU v JIBIR SAJO

“The law recognizes two categories of persons who can sue and be sued. They are natural persons and other bodies having juristic personality, referred to as artificial persons. It is the law that a body not vested with juristic or legal personality cannot sue or be sued. By the same token, he cannot appeal or respond to an appeal. Thus, it is only a natural or artificial person that possesses the capacity to approach a Court of law to seek the enforcement of his perceived legal rights or enforce any obligations he is legally entitled to. Put another way, a suit cannot be filed or defended, or an appeal filed or responded to, except by juristic persons – Dairo V Regd. Trustees of the Anglican Diocese of Lagos (2017) LPELR-42573(SC) 17-19, F-A, per Nweze, JSC; Abubakar V Yar’Adua (2008) LPELR-51(SC) 137, E-F, per Tobi, JSC; AG Federation V ANPP (2003) LPELR-630(SC) 23-24, F-C; Nzom V Jinadu (1987) 1 NWLR (Pt. 51) 533”.

“It is the law that appellate Courts are bound by the Record of proceedings of the Court below. See Onabanjo V The Sheriff High Court of Justice, (2009) LPELR-8284(CA) 7, A-C, where this Court per Ogunbiyi, JCA (as he then was), held: “As rightly submitted by the learned Respondents’ Counsel, it is trite law that parties are bound by the record of appeal and upon which the Court would rely for purpose of determination of the appeal. Any extraneous facts not contained therein would amount to a mere conjecture of the party as an abstract and would be struck out …”

“It is an accepted practice of trial Courts in land disputes to, where necessary, visit the land in dispute to ascertain the identity of the land, as well its ownership. This practice relates mostly to the customary ownership of land where there are no survey plans or documents of title; and all that is available is the oral evidence of witnesses to prove title/ownership.

“In addition, appellate Courts always treat the proceedings of Area Courts with caution and allow for a great latitude by not insisting on strict compliance with the rules of evidence and procedure. The standard usually applied is that of substantial justice. Once the proceedings are found to have been conducted in a manner leading to substantial justice, the appellate Courts would hardly interfere. This is the import of the decision of the Supreme Court in Ikpang V Edoho (1978) 2 LRN 29, 35-36 when it held thus: “Great latitude must be given to, and a broad interpretation placed upon Native Court cases – and one may add Customary Court cases – so that the entire proceedings, the evidence of the parties and the Judgment must be examined in order to determine what the Native Court or Customary Court case was all about. The whole conception and the result of the proceedings will show what the parties were fighting for, matters upon which issues were joined, even if technically framed in an inappropriate language from the standpoint of legal technocrats, and the decision of the Native Court or Customary Court on those issues.” Indeed, this has long been the position of the Supreme Court as articulated by the learned Jurist, Karibi-Whyte, JSC in the case of Kuusu V Udom (1990) LPELR-1725(SC) 31, C-F as follows – “Our new judicial system having accommodated our indigenous system of administration of justice has recognized its informality, malleability to particular areas in which the Court exercises jurisdiction, had made provision within the limits of the statutory provision enabling them to administer justice as understood by the people and to do substantial justice between the parties before them. Thus, what the enabling statutory provisions aim at achieving is the doing of substantial justice in accordance with the native laws and customs of the parties before them. Any technicality which will stultify the realization of this objective will be rejected by the Courts (See Section 61 Area Courts Edict 1968). Area Courts are therefore given wide latitude to enable them do substantial justice.” Thus, the Supreme Court, as well as this Court, has long recognized that what matters in trials in Native Courts such as Area and Customary Courts, is the substance and not the form. The decisions of such Courts are to be accorded respect by appellate Courts, provided that nothing is done therein which is contrary either to any express requirements of the law or to the principles of natural justice. See also Arum V Nwobodo (2013) LPELR-20390(SC) 28-30, A-C, per Aka’ahs, JSC; Ogundele V Agiri (2009) LPELR-2328(SC) 39-40, C-A, per Ogbuagu, JSC; Ieka V Tyo (2007) LPELR-12871(CA) 24-26, E, per Belgore, JCA”.

“The law is settled that in a claim of ownership or title to land, the claimant must prove his entitlement to the land by cogent evidence and the standard is on a preponderance of evidence. Also, he can only rely on the strength of his case and not on the weakness of the defence – Min. Of Lands & Housing, Bauchi State V Tirwun (2017) LPELR-43314(CA) 13-15, per Abiru, JCA; Ayorinde V Sogunro (2012) LPELR-7808(SC) 20, A, per Rhodes-Vivour, JSC; Olodo V Josiah (2010) LPELR-2584(SC) 40, C-D, per Adekeye, JSC.

“It is trite law that in a claim for declaration of title to land, the onus is on the plaintiff to establish his claim upon the strength of his own case and not upon the weakness of the case of the defendant. The plaintiff must therefore, satisfy the court that upon the pleadings and evidence adduced by him, he is entitled to the declaration sought. See Gbadamosi V. Dairo (2007) 3 NWLR Pt 1021 pg. 282 Dada V. Dosunmu (2006) 18 NWLR Pt. 1010 pg. 134 Onissaodu V. Elewuju (2006) 13 NWLR Pt. 998 pg 517. Ajiboye V. Ishola (2006) 13 NWLR Pt. 998 pg. 628”.

“I find as preposterous the submission of appellant’s counsel that all the Appellant needed to prove was loan of the land, and that there was no burden in him to prove title. It is clear that the Respondent put title in issue when in answer to the Appellant’s claim, he denied same and claimed that the land was his as he was the person to clear and farm on it. Since title was thus put in issue, the Appellant was required not only to prove that he loaned the land to the Respondent but to prove his title to it – see Ayodele V. Jubilee Life Savings & Loans Ltd (2019) LPELR-48018 (CA) PP. 24 – 27, Paras D – 7.