CORAM
Yargata Byenchit Nimpar – Justice of the Court of Appeal
Binta Fatima Zubairu – Justice of the Court of Appeal
Uwabunkeonye Onwosi – Justice of the Court of Appeal
PARTIES
ALADE GLOBAL LINK NIGERIA LIMITED
APPELLANTS
1. THE INCORPORATED TRUSTEES OF THE DEEPER CHRISTIAN LIFE MINISTRY
2. MR. ORIMOLADE
3. MR. FRANK
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
LAND LAW, PROPERTY LAW, CIVIL PROCEDURE, JURISDICTION, STATUTE OF LIMITATION, EVIDENCE, LAND USE ACT, LAND TITLE, POSSESSION AND OWNERSHIP
SUMMARY OF FACTS
This case revolves around ownership of a parcel of land measuring approximately 9113.170 square meters (2.251 Acres) located at Orimerunmu via Pakuro along Lagos/Ibadan Expressway, Obafemi Owode Local Government Area, Ogun State. The Appellant (Claimant at the trial Court) claimed to have purchased the land from representatives of the Thomas Abaoba Family of Orimerunmu Village and was issued a Certificate of Occupancy No. 0032681 by the Ogun State Government.
The Appellant instituted the suit at the High Court of Ogun State through a Writ of Summons accompanied by Statement of Claim and other supporting documents. The claims included a declaration validating their Certificate of Occupancy, declaration that the Respondents' entry onto the property constituted trespass, damages of N5,000,000 for trespass, and an order of perpetual injunction restraining the Respondents from further trespassing or developing the land.
The Respondents (Defendants at the trial Court) filed a Joint Statement of Defence, with the 1st Respondent counter-claiming against the Appellant and the Ogun State Bureau of Lands and Survey. The 1st Respondent claimed to have purchased the land from one Alhaji Monsuru Olalonpe Disu in 2003, and sought to have the Appellant's Certificate of Occupancy declared null and void.
At trial, the Appellant called three witnesses while the Respondents called two witnesses. The lower Court dismissed the Appellant’s claims and entered judgment in favor of the 1st Respondent’s Counter-Claim. Dissatisfied, the Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal.
HELD
1. The appeal was allowed.
2. The judgment delivered by Honorable Justice Olarewaju Mabekoje on the 5th day of April, 2019, in Suit No: AB/15/2013 was set aside.
3. The counter-claim of the Respondents was struck out for want of jurisdiction.
ISSUES
1. Whether the High Court of Ogun State had the requisite jurisdiction to entertain the Respondent’s Counter-Claim in the circumstances of this case.?
2. Whether the Ogun State Government could validly issue Certificate of Occupancy in respect of land validly acquired via a published gazette of which the Court ought to take judicial notice.?
3. Whether the Court was bound to accept the uncontroverted evidence of traditional history.?
4. Whether a party can acquire title by possession of a piece of land subject to a statutory right of occupancy.?
RATIONES DECIDENDI
NOTICE OF APPEAL – NECESSITY OF PROPER SIGNATURE BY LEGAL PRACTITIONER:
“A Notice of Appeal must be validly and legally initiated to properly place an appeal before the Court of Appeal. There is no doubt that a Notice of Appeal is a vital and very important process and must be properly filed before there could be a valid appeal since it activates the jurisdiction of an appellate Court. See Adeyemo Abiodun Vs. Federal Republic of Nigeria & 2 Ors.(2016) All FWLR (Pt. 841) 1374 at 1388.” – Per UWABUNKEONYE ONWOSI, J.C.A
ISSUE OF JURISDICTION – WHEN IT CAN BE RAISED:
“It is well established law that jurisdiction is a fundamental issue that can be raised at any stage of the proceedings, including for the first time in the Supreme Court. Additionally, jurisdictional matters can be raised suo motu by the Court regardless of whether the parties have raised the issue.’ – Per UWABUNKEONYE ONWOSI, J.C.A
STATUTE OF LIMITATION – EFFECT ON COURT’S JURISDICTION:
“The law is crystal clear on the effect of an action caught by the statute of limitation. Any suit which is filed after the period allowed by a statute is statute barred. This Court need say that such action is not maintainable and the operation of the limitation law leaves the plaintiff with a right of action which is dead in law, and accordingly no Court will have jurisdiction to entertain the action. “– Per UWABUNKEONYE ONWOSI, J.C.A
EXCEPTIONS TO LIMITATION LAWS:
“Indeed, there are some exceptions to the limitation laws set out by various statutes. These statutory limitations cover cases such as fraud, deliberate concealment by the defendant, or mistake or in circumstance where there is a continuing injury. Each fresh damage arising from same injury gives rise to a fresh cause of action.” – Per UWABUNKEONYE ONWOSI, J.C.A
DETERMINING WHETHER A CLAIM IS TIME-BARRED:
“When the issue for determination is whether a claim is time barred, the trial Judge resolves the issue first by examining the applicable limitation period provided in the enabling statute to see the period stipulated therein for the claim before him. Secondly, the Judge determines when the cause of action arose by examining carefully the writ of summons and statement of claim. Thirdly, when the Judge is satisfied as to when the claimant/plaintiff had a cause of action, he compares that date with the date the writ of summons was filed. If the time from when the cause of action arose to when the writ of summons was filed is beyond the period allowed in the enabling statute, then the action is statute-barred. As the law stands now, a Court has no discretion in the matter.”– Per UWABUNKEONYE ONWOSI, J.C.A
JUDICIAL NOTICE OF GAZETTE – STATUTORY REQUIREMENT:
“It is clear from the provisions of Sections 73 and 74 of the Evidence Act, Cap 112 (now Section 122 of the Evidence Act, 2011) that it is not necessary for a party to adduce evidence in order to prove assertion where the facts to be proved are such that the Court is enjoined to take judicial notice of. There is no doubt that the provisions of Sections 73 and 74 (now Section 122 of the Evidence Act, 2011) constitute an exception to the rules on burden of proof contained in Part VII of the Evidence Act.”– Per UWABUNKEONYE ONWOSI, J.C.A
GOVERNOR’S CONSENT – REQUIREMENT FOR VALID ALIENATION:
“It shall not be lawful for the holder of a statutory right of occupancy granted by the Governor to alienate his right of occupancy or any part thereof by assignment, mortgage, transfer of possession, sublease or otherwise howsoever without the consent of the Governor first had and obtained.” – Per UWABUNKEONYE ONWOSI, J.C.A
EFFECT OF NON-COMPLIANCE WITH THE LAND USE ACT:
“Any transaction or any instrument which purports to confer on or vest in any person any interest or right over land other than in accordance with the provisions of the Act shall be null and void.”– Per UWABUNKEONYE ONWOSI, J.C.A
APPLICATION OF SECTION 22 OF THE LAND USE ACT:
“The Court of Appeal was right to hold that every holder of a right of occupancy whether statutory or otherwise is regarded as having been granted the right by the Military Governor or Local Government as the case may be, for the purpose of control and management of all land comprised in the state. Accordingly, every such holder, whether under Sections 5, 34 or 36 of the Land Use Act requires the prior consent of the Military Governor before he can transfer, mortgage or otherwise dispose of his interest in the right of occupancy. This means that Section 22 is of general application to every holder under the Act pursuant to Section 4, 34 or 36 thereof.”– Per UWABUNKEONYE ONWOSI, J.C.A
POSSESSION VERSUS OCCUPATION OF LAND:
“The law is that where a party claims title to a disputed land by way of possession of same, if there is a litigation between the parties, the onus is the other side, which is asserting the contrary, to prove that he is the true owner of the land. This because there is usually a tendency to confuse possession with mere occupation. Occupation, as used in relation to land, entails more physical control of the land in the time being. It is a matter of fact. Such a control may have originated from mere permission or loan from actual landowner or it may be even by stealing or by tortuous trespass.” – Per UWABUNKEONYE ONWOSI, J.C.A
EFFECT OF LONG AND ADVERSE POSSESSION:
“Long and adverse possession cannot defeat the title of the true owner”.– Per UWABUNKEONYE ONWOSI, J.C.AA
CONFLICTING CLAIMS OF POSSESSION:
“Where actual possession is in a party, whether de jure or defacto, physical or constructive, the possession claimed by the other party is excluded. And where there is conflicting claim for possession and in addition for declaration of title, the law ascribes the possession to the one with better title.”– Per UWABUNKEONYE ONWOSI, J.C.A
TRESPASS DOES NOT CONFER LAWFUL POSSESSION:
“A trespasser does not, by virtue of his act of trespass, acquire lawful possession of land.”– Per UWABUNKEONYE ONWOSI, J.C.A
CASES CITED
STATUTES REFERRED TO
Land Use Act, Cap 202, Laws of the Federal Republic of Nigeria
Evidence Act, 2011
Limitation Law of Ogun State
Legal Practitioners Act, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004
CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT