ALHAJI AMINU H. DIKKO V. ALHAJI SHEHU SOJA

Legalpedia Citation: (2023-07) Legalpedia 67678 (CA)

In the Court of Appeal

Holden at Sokoto

Mon Jul 17, 2023

Suit Number: CA/S/90/2021

CORAM

MUHAMMED LAWAL SHUAIBU JUSTICE OF THE COURT OF APPEAL

RIDWAN MAIWADA ABDULLAHI JUSTICE OF THE COURT OF APPEAL

EBIOWEI TOBI JUSTICE OF THE COURT OF APPEAL

PARTIES

ALHAJI AMINU H. DIKKO

APPELLANTS

ALHAJI SHEHU SOJA

RESPONDENTS

AREA(S) OF LAW

APPEAL, EVIDENCE, LAND, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

SUMMARY OF FACTS

In the year 2008, one Alhaji Abdullahi Jabo sold two plot of land situate at Guiwa Area, Sokoto to the appellant at the cost of N3 Million Naira and when the appellant commenced demarcation of the said plots preparatory to construction, the respondent layed claim of same as a result of which the matter was reported to the Sokoto State Police Command C.I.D section, command headquarters Sokoto. The police conducted a discrete investigation as to the true ownership of the plots (the two plots of land with plot No. 417 LP. 203 Phase II an Area of about 0.04 sheets and No. SOK/G/3590 plot No. 418, LP 203, Phase II an Area about 0.0482 all situated at Guiwa Area Sokoto) by inviting the parties concerned and also receiving a report from the Ministry of Lands, Housing and Survey as to genuiness of the parties` title documents. However, on the 10th of April, 2012, the appellant instituted an action at the lower Court seeking for declaration of title to these parcels of land.

The Claims of the plaintiff at trial court were dismissed. He was aggrieved by the decision hence the instant appeal.

HELD

Appeal dismissed

ISSUES

Whether from the state of pleadings, documents tendered and the evidence adduced in support, the decision of the Court below was correct in law?

RATIONES DECIDENDI

TITLE TO LAND – DUTY OF THE PLAINTIFF IN AN ACTION FOR DECLARATION OF TITLE TO LAND

It is trite that a plaintiff has a duty in an action for declaration of title to land to adduce sufficient and credible evidence to establish the mode of acquisition of his title and he must succeed on the strength of his own case and not on the weakness of the defence (if any), although he may take advantage of defendant;s evidence where it support his case as required by law. However, a consideration of the defendant's case and the weakness of it does not arise until the plaintiff has led evidence showing prima facie, that he has a title to the land. [AROMIRE VS AWOYEMI (1972) 2 SC 1]. – Per M. L. Shuaibu, JCA

INSTRUMENT OF GRANT – EFFECT OF MERE PRODUCTION OF INSTRUMENT OF GRANT

…it is settled that mere production of instrument of grant does not automatically entitle a party to a declaration the property which such an instrument purports to grant is his own. Rather, production and reliance upon such an instrument inevitably carries with it the need for the Court to enquire into some or all a number of questions including whether the document is genuine and valid, whether it has been duly executed, stamped and whether the grantor had infact what he purport to grant and whether it had the effect claimed by the holders of the instrument. See SALEH VS HON. MINISTER OF F.C.T & ORS (2016) LPELR – 41581 (CA). – Per M. L. Shuaibu, JCA

TITLE TO LAND – WHERE A PLAINTIFF FAILS TO PROVE THE ROOT OF TITLE TO THE LAND HE CLAIMS

What is more, where a plaintiff as in the present case, fails to prove the root of title to the land he claims, his case stands dismissed in toto. In other words, if a root of title dependent upon is defective or remains unproved, the possession claimed will be illusory and it may in the end be an act of trespass. – Per M. L. Shuaibu, JCA