STANLEY ADIGA ADUKPE & ORS V. CHIEF ODEE BENEDICT ACHIBI & ORS
August 22, 2025MUSTAPHA DAN DAURA v. DELE FAJEMIROKUN & ANOR
August 22, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (2025-04) Legalpedia 94155 (CA)
In the Court of Appeal
Thu Apr 17, 2025
Suit Number: CA/S/33/2024
CORAM
Muhammed Lawal Shuaibu Justice of the Court of Appeal
Abdullahi Muhammad Liman Justice of the Court of Appeal
Victoria Toochukwu Nwoye Justice of the Court of Appeal
PARTIES
AHAJI BELLON BELLO
APPELLANTS
1. HARUNA GALADIMA
2. BASHAR DANDARE
3. ALHAJI SANI GADI
4. DANKO NANNE
5. ALHAJI TANKARI BABANJURI
6. MANU MAIDAMMA
7. DAYABU DAN MADUGA
8. HALI DANADILI
9. DANDARE (A.K.A) PRODUCER
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, LAND LAW, PROPERTY LAW, EVIDENCE LAW, TRADITIONAL EVIDENCE, BURDEN OF PROOF, TITLE TO LAND, APPEAL, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE, PLEADINGS, INHERITANCE LAW, CUSTOMARY LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
This case concerns a dispute over land ownership in Kebbi State. The Appellant, Ahaji Bellon Bello, as Claimant at the trial court, sought declarations for exclusive right of occupancy over disputed land, claiming that the land was gifted to his late father, Mallam Muhammadu Mijin Diya, by the late Sarkin Gwandu Haruna (former Emir of Gwandu) over 100 years ago. The Appellant claimed to have inherited the land from his father and that they had been in long possession and enjoyment of the land for over 100 years without adverse claim until 2004.
The nine Respondents challenged the Appellant’s claim, questioning whether the Emir of Gwandu owned the disputed land and whether he had the power to gift it out. They also disputed that the Appellant’s father was actually gifted the land. The trial court in Kebbi State High Court dismissed the Appellant’s case on October 11, 2021, finding that the Appellant had failed to prove his title to the land.
During the trial, the Appellant called one witness who testified, while the Defendants called four witnesses in their defense. The Appellant claimed that according to traditional history handed down by his late mother, his father migrated from Argungu about 100 years ago and sought a spacious place to settle for farming and rearing activities from the late Sarkin Gwandu Haruna, who then made a free gift of the land to his father. However, evidence on record showed that the Emir of Gwandu Haruna was turbaned in 1954, creating a discrepancy with the claim that the gift was made over 100 years ago.
HELD
1. The appeal was dismissed.
2. The decision of the trial court delivered on October 11, 2021, was affirmed.
3. The Court held that the Appellant failed to prove his title to the disputed land through traditional evidence as he could not establish how the alleged grantor (Sarkin Gwandu Haruna) founded or acquired title to the land himself.
4. The Court found that there was an unexplained gap in the chain of title, as the Appellant could not prove the title of his predecessor in title (the Emir of Gwandu).
5. The Court ruled that where a claimant fails to prove his pleaded title through traditional history, he cannot turn around to rely on acts of ownership and possession to prove his title.
6. The Appellant was ordered to pay costs in the sum of N50,000.00.
ISSUES
1. Whether a Court of law where contending parties before it presented their pieces of evidence is bound to consider those pieces of evidence before arriving at a decision?
2. Whether in a case for declaration of title to land a Court of law is duty bound to determine whether or not the Claimant has proved the specific method of proof of his title as pleaded by him, before considering his method of proof of that title?
3. Whether from a dispassionate consideration of the judgment of the Court his Lordship did not misconceive the case of the Appellant, decided it under that misconception and thereby visited a failure of justice on him?
4. Whether upon a calm and purposeful consideration of the pleadings and evidence of the Appellant he proved the grant of the land to his late father by a traditional leader to enable him rely on acts of long possession and enjoyment of same?
5. Whether upon a holistic consideration of the case on appeal the judgment of the lower Court is against the weight of evidence?
RATIONES DECIDENDI
METHODS OF PROVING TITLE TO LAND — THE FIVE ESTABLISHED WAYS
“It is a cardinal principle of our land law that there are five ways of proving title to land in Nigeria. These five methods trace their cradle to the case of IDUNDUN V. OKUMAGBA (1976) 9-10 SC 227” – Per VICTORIA TOOCHUKWU NWOYE, J.C.A.
BURDEN OF PROOF IN LAND MATTERS — WHO BEARS THE ONUS
“The burden of proof in land matters, though depends on the state of pleadings, is mainly on the Claimant. It could thereafter shift to the Defendant depending on the evidential burden. However, it is trite law that he who seeks title to land must prove that title. The burden of proof of title or ownership of land is firm and stands so on the face of the Claimant, who has the responsibility to discharge it regardless of how weak the defence is.” – Per VICTORIA TOOCHUKWU NWOYE, J.C.A.
EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE — PRIMARY FUNCTION OF TRIAL COURT
“The law is settled that evaluation of relevant and material evidence before the Court and the ascription of probative value to such evidence are the primary functions of the trial Court, which saw, heard and assessed the witnesses while they testified.” – Per VICTORIA TOOCHUKWU NWOYE, J.C.A.
TRADITIONAL EVIDENCE REQUIREMENTS — RELIABILITY AND COGENCY
“Where a Claimant is relying on evidence of traditional history, such evidence must be reliable, cogent, and uncontroverted before it can be found to support a claim of title.” – Per VICTORIA TOOCHUKWU NWOYE, J.C.A.
PROOF OF PREDECESSOR’S TITLE — WHEN TITLE IS QUESTIONED
“Where the title of the predecessor in title has been made an issue as in the instant case, the onus is on the claimant to prove the title of his predecessor in title… Once the title of a claimant’s predecessor in title is questioned, that must be proved by the claimant to establish that the predecessor in title had land to transfer to the claimant. This follows the legal maxim ‘Nemo dat quod non habet’- ‘no one can give what he does not have’.” – Per VICTORIA TOOCHUKWU NWOYE, J.C.A.
REQUIREMENTS FOR INHERITANCE CLAIMS — CHAIN OF TITLE
“In a claim for declaration of title to land based on inheritance from an ancestor, the claimant must adduce evidence on the names or the history of the several progenitors appurtenant to him down the line to him. He must plead and give evidence and, in this case, the persons who have held title or on whom title devolved in respect of the land before him.” – Per VICTORIA TOOCHUKWU NWOYE, J.C.A.
ESTABLISHING TITLE — THREE ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS
“Therefore, in order to establish title, a claimant must prove: (i) Who founded the land (ii) How the land was founded (iii) The particulars of the intervening owners through whom he claims title.” – Per VICTORIA TOOCHUKWU NWOYE, J.C.A.
LIMITATION ON ALTERNATIVE PROOF METHODS — FAILURE OF PLEADED TITLE
“Where a claimant for title to land who pleads traditional history fails to prove his root of title by that means, he cannot turn around to rely on acts of ownership and possession to prove his title to the land. As a matter of course, there would be nothing on which to find acts of ownership. In such a case, the Court is obliged to dismiss his claim.” – Per VICTORIA TOOCHUKWU NWOYE, J.C.A.
ADMISSIONS IN PLEADINGS — EFFECT OF NON-JOINDER OF ISSUES
“The Appellant did not join issues with the Respondents on this, he is deemed to have admitted that fact as facts admitted need no further prove.” – Per VICTORIA TOOCHUKWU NWOYE, J.C.A.
STRENGTH OF OWN CASE — SUCCESS DEPENDS ON CLAIMANT’S EVIDENCE
“A party claiming ownership of land must satisfy the Court by credible evidence, the success of his claim must depends entirely on the strength of his own case.” – Per VICTORIA TOOCHUKWU NWOYE, J.C.A.
INSUFFICIENCY OF MERE ASSERTIONS — NEED FOR STRONG EVIDENCE
“It is not enough for the claimant in such an action to set up a case through averments in the statement of claim. Proof of the claim must be established. There must be strong and positive evidence to establish his title.” – Per VICTORIA TOOCHUKWU NWOYE, J.C.A.
REQUIREMENTS FOR TRADITIONAL HISTORY CLAIMS — COMPLETE GENEALOGICAL CHAIN
“The established principle of law is that where a claimant relies on and bases his claim for declaration of ownership/title to land on traditional history, he must plead and prove by credible evidence on the following: (a) Who founded the land, (b) How the land was founded by the named founder, e.g. by deforestation, conquest, first settlement, gift, inheritance or purchase; (c) Names and particulars of the interventional owners to whom the land had passed or devolved from the founder and their relationships to him down to the claimant/plaintiff; in an unbroken genealogical chain in which there exists no unexplained gaps that would puncture the credibility of the claim.” – Per MUHAMMED LAWAL SHUAIBU, J.C.A.
STANDARD OF PROOF FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF — BALANCE OF PROBABILITIES
“The Appellant, who was the claimant, must establish entitlement to the relief of the declaration to the title/ownership sought by way of admissible, credible and sufficient evidence on the balance of probabilities to the satisfaction of the Court.” – Per MUHAMMED LAWAL SHUAIBU, J.C.A.
CASES CITED
STATUTES REFERRED TO
• Evidence Act 2011
• Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended)
• Court of Appeal Rules 2021
