ALBERT KUVA V. JAURO WANSA

CORAM

CHIDI NWAOMA UWA

FATIMAT O. AKINBAMI

JAMILU YAMMAMA TUKUR

PARTIES

ALBERT KUVA

APPELLANTS

JAURO WANSA

RESPONDENTS

AREA(S) OF LAW

APPEAL, COURT, JUDGMENT AND ORDER, LAND LAW, LAW OF EVIDENCE, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

SUMMARY OF FACTS

At the High Court of Taraba State, the Claimants/Respondents instituted an action as representatives of Boadong Family, via a writ of summons wherein they claimed they were entitled to the customary right of occupancy over all that vast land lying and situate at Dibadong Jimlari village, Lau Local Government Area, Taraba State; a declaration that the Defendants/Appellants are trespassers and an order restraining them for further trespassing amongst others. The Appellants at the trial court also counter claimed, seeking a declaration of title over all that parcel of land situate and lying west of Jimlari village in Lau Local Government Area of Taraba State, and perpetual injunction restraining the Claimant/Respondent and their representatives from further trespassing on the land, amongst others. The trial Court gave judgment in favour of the Claimants/Respondents and further dismissed the counter claim of the Defendants/Appellants. Dissatisfied with the decisions of the Trial Court, the Defendants/Appellants have appealed to the Court of Appeal, contending that the lower Court permitted the Respondents to resile from their chosen method of proof of their entitlement to declaration of title over the land in dispute, that is traditional history, when that method seemed not to favour the Respondents and went ahead to grant the Respondents title based on a different method of proof, that is acts of long possession/ownership.

HELD

Appeal Dismissed

ISSUES

Whether going by the circumstances of this case and the evidence on record the judgment of the trial Court declaring title in respect of the disputed land in favour of the Respondents but dismissing the counter-claim of the Appellants was not right? (Grounds 1,2,3,4 and 5)

RATIONES DECIDENDI

BURDEN OF PROOF – DUTY OF A PARTY SEEKING AN ORDER OR RELIEF FROM A COURT

“The law regarding the determination of civil suits is clear and to the effect that a party who is desirous of getting an order or relief from a Court of law has the duty of proving the existence of facts which establishes his entitlement to the grant of that order or relief. The foregoing is what is referred to as burden of proof in the law of evidence. See: Union Bank V. Ravih Abdul & Co. Ltd (2018) LPELR-46333(SC); and Adighije V. Nwaogu & Ors (2010) LPELR-4941(CA).” PER J.Y. TUKUR, J.C.A

DECLARATION OF TITLE TO LAND- DUTY OF A PARTY SEEKING DECLARATION OF TITLE TO LAND

“Particularly with regards to declaration of title to land, which has at its core the extinguishing of rights which may hold a lot of sentimental value in addition to vast economic significance to persons vying for same, the law is settled that a party seeking declaration for title to land must prove that he is entitled to such grant by adducing cogent and reliable evidence in support of his claim, particularly as to the root of his title. He must rely on the strength of his own case and not on the weakness of the defendant’s case to succeed. This Court in the case of Ike & Anor V. Anudike & Ors (2018) LPELR-45085(CA) Per ABIRIYI, J.C.A. (Pp. 24-25, Paras. D-B), succinctly stated the general principle applicable to declarative reliefs thus:

“The law is settled that declaratory reliefs are not granted as a matter of course and on a platter of gold. They are only granted when credible evidence has been led by the plaintiff or person seeking the declaratory relief. It is the practice that a declaratory relief will be granted where the plaintiff is entitled to the relief in the fullest meaning of the word. It is a requirement of the law that the plaintiff must plead and prove his claims for declaratory relief without relying on the evidence called by the defendant. Such declaratory relief is not granted even on admission by the defendant. However, there is nothing wrong in a plaintiff taking advantage of any evidence adduced by the defence which tends to establish the plaintiff’s title. See Anyanru vs. Mandilas Ltd (2007) 4 SCNJ 288, Chukwumah vs. S.P.D.C (Nig) Ltd (1993) LPELR-864 SC page 64 – 65, Matanmi & Ors vs. Dada & Anor (2013) LPELR-19929 SC, Oguanuhu vs. Chiegboka (2013) 2 SCNJ 693 at 707 and Akinboni & Ors vs. Akintope & Ors (2016) LPELR – 40184 CA page 25 – 26.”

See: Kopek Construction Ltd. V. Ekisola (2010) LPELR-1703(SC); Olatomide & Anor V. Ikumuyilo & Ors (2019) LPELR-48374(CA); and Olatunji & Ors V. Ayeni (2019) LPELR-48495(CA).” PER J.Y. TUKUR, J.C.A

LAND LAW, LAW OF EVIDENCE, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

BURDEN OF PROOF- ON WHOM LIES THE BURDEN OF PROOF IN AN ACTION FOR DECLARATION OF TITLE TO LAND.

“The Supreme Court in the case of Onovo & Ors V. Mba & Ors (2014) LPELR-23035(SC), (P. 27, paras. A-E) per OGUNBIYI, J.S.C. reiterated the foregoing in relation to declaration of title to land thus:

“The law is also settled that in a claim for declaration of title to land, the onus lies on the plaintiffs/appellants to establish their claim on the strength of their own case and not rely on the weakness of the defendants/respondents. Therefore, the plaintiffs must satisfy the court that based on their pleadings and evidence they are entitled to the declaration sought.’’

PER J.Y. TUKUR, J.C.A