GOZIE OKEKE V. THE STATE
June 17, 2025ECOBANK NIGERIA PLC V SUN INSURANCE PLC
June 17, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (2003) Legalpedia (SC) 30367
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Fri Feb 21, 2003
Suit Number: SC. 51/1996
CORAM
SALIHU MODIBBO ALFA BELGORE, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
EMMANUEL OLAYINKA AYOOLA, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
PARTIES
ALHAJI AMINU DANTSOHO APPELLANTS
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
Both the plaintiff/respondent and the defendant/appellant are holders of a Statutory Right of Occupancy over the same piece of Land know as Plot 79 Sharada, Kano in the Kano Municipality. The plaintiff’s action was for damages and an injunction restraining the defendant from continuing the nuisance.?
HELD
The court held that since title to the land is in the Respondent everything that accedes to the land belongs to the Respondent on the principle quid quid plantatur solo solo credit. Appeal was therefore dismissed and the cross-appeal allowed.
ISSUES
1. When two holders of Statutory Right of Occupancy trace their title to the same Governor and over the same piece of land which of the holders takes precedence over the other, the first in time or the latter holder?2. Whether the non joinder of the Governor of Kano State as party in the instant case was fatal to the decision reached by the lower court.
RATIONES DECIDENDI
DEFINITION OF TRESPASSER AB INITIO
It is a settled principle of law that where a person who initially entered upon land lawfully or pursuant to an authority given by the true owner, or person in possession subsequently abuses his position or that authority, he becomes a trespasser ab initio, his conduct relating back so as to make his initial entry trespass.
ATTITUDE OF COURT TO CONTESTING LAND GRANT
Where two contesting parties trace their title in respect of the same piece of land to the same grantor the applicable principle of law has always been that the latter in time of the two parties to obtain the grant cannot maintain an action against the party who first obtained a valid grant of the land from such a common grantor because the grantor having successfully divested himself of title in respect of the piece of land in question by the first grant would have nothing left to convey to a subsequent grantee under the elementary principle of nemo dat quod non habet as no one may convey what no longer belongs to him.
NON-JOINDER OF PARTY
Where there is no complaint against a party, the non-joinder of that party will not affect the proper determination of the issues joined.
CASES CITED
Tewogbade V. Mrs. Obadina (1994) 4 SCNJ 79. Osho V. Foreign Corporation (1991) 4 NWLR (Pt. 184) 157.Ajibade V. Pedro (1992) 5 NWLR (Pt.241) 257
STATUTES REFERRED TO
The Land Use Act, Cap. 202 LFN 1990.
