ALH. UMARU TUDUN WADA PANTAMI V. BAKA BUBA AND 12 ORS

Legalpedia Citation: (2023-07) Legalpedia 81755 (CA)

In the Court of Appeal

GOMBE JUDICIAL DIVISION

Thu Jul 6, 2023

Suit Number: CA/G/85/2021

CORAM

A. B. GUMEL JCA
DANJUMA JCA
I. BANJOKO JCA

PARTIES

ALH. UMARU TUDUN WADA PANTAMI

APPELLANTS

BAKA BUBA
BIBA MICHAEL
SALEH ABDU
KETOS SAIDU
HARUNA MANAJA
MAIKUDI HASSAN
YAYA YUSUFU
KILYOBAS EZEKIEL
MADU HAMMA
HABILA MADUGU
BILIYAMINU AUDI
ISHAKU SALEH
MALAM APOLOS

RESPONDENTS

AREA(S) OF LAW

APPEAL, EVIDENCE, LAND, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Res is a piece of farmland situated at Gagarabami Village Kaltanga District, Akko Local Government Area, Gombe State. At the high Court of Gombe State (Trial Court), the Respondents herein were the plaintiffs claiming ownership of the said land. It is their claim that the said land as allotted to them by the Dagaci (village head) of Kaltanga but the defendants opposed the claim.

The judgment was delivered in favour of the Plaintiffs/Respondents and the Appellant, aggrieved with the decision filed this appeal.

HELD

Appeal allowed

ISSUES

Whether the Plaintiffs/Respondents established with credible evidence their respective root of title to the land in issue?
Whether the Plaintiffs/Respondents proof with certainty the identity of the land they are claiming?

RATIONES DECIDENDI

PLEADING – CONDUCT OF COURTS TO PLEADINGS OF PARTIES

It has been held times without number that parties are bound by their pleading which serve as a nucleus of either the Plaintiff or defendant’s case. See the case of PLATEAU STATE GOVT. CREST HOTEL & GARDEN LTD (2012) LPELR-9794 (CA).

In the instant case, it is clear that the evidence of PW1 as to who assigned their respective farm lands to them contradict his evidence in chief as well as the content of their pleadings. In the case of UGOCHUKWU VS. UNIPETROL (2002) 8 MJSC 165 at ratio 2, it was held that;

“Where a trial is conducted on the basis of pleadings matters alleged must be proved by evidence and such evidence must not derogate from the pleadings”. – Per Mohammed Danjuma, JCA

GRANTOR – WHERE A GRANTOR HAS NO TITLE TO THE LAND HE PURPORTS TO CONVEY

It is settled that a person who purports to dispose of a parcel of land which does not belong to him or in which he has no interest or which is encumbered to another person, the principle of NEMO DAT QUOD NON HABET applies, thereby making the purported sale void ab initio. See the case of AKERELE V. ATUNRASE & ORS (1969) ALL NLR 195 AT 202, ADELAJA V. FANOIKI

(1990) 2 NWLR (PT. 131) 137 AT 151, OLOSUNDE V. OLADELE (1991) 4 NWLR (PT. 188) 713 AT 726 and POLO V. OJOR (2002) LPELR-6086 (CA).

Similarly, it was held in the case of ELEWA V. GUFFANTI (NIG) PLC. (2017) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1549) P.233 that when a grantor had no title to the land he purports to convey to another, the purported conveyance is not valid and is incapable of conveying any legal title over the land or property in question. – CA/G/85/2021 ADEBUKUNOLA ADEOTI BANJOKO, JCA

I have heard the Privilege of reading through the Ruling delivered by my Learned Brother, MOHAMMED DANJUMA, JCA and I agree with his analysis and erudite reasoning in the Judgment.

It is Settled Law that where evidence of a Witness is contradictory and the contradictions go to the Root of the Claim, the evidence will be rendered unreliable. Reference is made to the Cases of ROBERT VS IGP (2021) 7 NWLR (PART 1775) PAGE 268 AT 282; KWENEV VS STATE (2022) LPELR-57561(SC).

In this case, there were material contradictions in the Testimony of PW1 and as such the Lower Court was therefore in error to have ascribed probative value to his Testimony

I also find the Appeal to be meritorious and is therefore allowed. The Judgment of the Lower Court delivered in Suit No: GM/15/2019 is hereby set aside.

EVIDENCE – WHERE EVIDENCE ADDUCED BY A PARTY IS CONTRADICTORY

Contradiction and inconsistency in a party’s evidence has serious consequences and it is the duty of court to reject it as unreliable. In the case of YAKUBU V. JAUROYEL & ORS (2014) LPELR-22732 (SC), it was held thus:

“It is also trite that where the evidence adduced by the plaintiff is contradictory, he would have failed to discharge the onus of proof on him”. – Per Mohammed Danjuma, JCA

LAND – WHERE THE CLAIMANT FAILS TO IDENTIFY THE LAND HE IS CLAIMING

In the case of NIPOST & ANOR V. GAJEKE & ORS (2021) LPELR-53244 (CA), this court Per AWOTOYE, JCA (P. 29, Paras. B-C) held that:

“The failure of the claimant for declaration of title to land to positively and precisely identify the land he is claiming is a fatal and terminal affliction. It brings his claim to an abrupt and distrous end. See ADELUSOLA VS. AKINDE (SUPRA)”. – Per Mohammed Danjuma, JCA

LAND – THE DUTY OF A CLAIMANT TO IDENTIFY THE LAND IN DISPUTE

This duty to establish the identity of the land in dispute with certainty is referred to as the foremost and fundamental duty of a person claiming an interest in land because where a claimant fails to plead and establish the precise area of land to which his claim relates, whatever evidence, whether or oral or documentary, he produces at the trial and however cogent and credible the evidence might appear, it cannot in law, ground a claim of an interest in land in his favour. Thus, in the case of ODUNZE VS. NWOSU (2007) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1050) 1, the Apex Court held that before a court trying a land matter goes into the facts of the case it must firstly satisfy itself of the certainty of the land in dispute and its boundaries. – Per Mohammed Danjuma, JCA