Legalpedia Citation: (2014-12) Legalpedia (SC) 11111
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Fri Dec 19, 2014
Suit Number: SC. 301/2007
CORAM
PARTIES
1.ALHAJI MOHAMMED BUHARI AWODI
2.ALFA IDRIS AMAO
APPELLANTS
MALLAM SALIU AJAGBE
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The Plaintiffs/Respondents sued the Defendants/Appellants at the Upper Area Court I, Ilorin claiming a declarative order that their family in Ara Village, Kwara State Polytechnic’s Permanent site Area near Ilorin are the customary owners and possessors of all the parcel of land stretching from Ara Village to Odogori, part of which the Defendants/Appellants has trespassed upon particularly around Gaa Area Ile-Oganga River. Also claimed is a declarative order that the sales of part of the land by the Defendants/Appellants without the consent of the Plaintiffs/Respondents be null and void, general damages and an order of perpetual injunction restraining the Defendant from entering the said land. The Defendants/Appellants also counter claimed and denied the Plaintiffs/Respondent’s claims. After hearing evidence from both parties for and against their respective claims and counter-claims, the trial Upper Area Court held that both the claim and counter claim succeeded in part. The Defendants/Appellants herein, being dissatisfied with the decision of the Upper Area Court, filed an appeal to the appellate session of the High Court of Kwara State, Ilorin and the Plaintiffs/Appellants also cross- appealed. The High Court upheld the decision of the trial court and the Defendants/Appellants again appealed to the Court of Appeal while the Plaintiffs/Respondents also cross appealed. The Court of Appeal dismissed both the appeal and cross appeal. Hence, the Defendant/Appellant appealed to the Supreme Court.
HELD
Appeal dismissed
ISSUES
1. Whether upon failure of the plaintiff who relied on traditional history to establish his title, reliance can be placed on act of possession?
2. Whether the court can grant a relief not claimed by both parties?
RATIONES DECIDENDI
DECLARATION OF TITLE TO LAND- IN AN ACTION FOR DECLARARTION OF TITLE TO LAND, THE LAND IN DISPUTE MUST BE ASCERTAINED
‘‘In an action for declaration of title to land, the land to which the declaration relates must be ascertained with certainty before the court would make a declaration. See Elias v. Omo-Bare 1982 5SC p.25’’ PER O. RHODES-VIVOUR, JSC
PROOF OF TITLE- A PARTY NEEDS ONLY ONE OF THE FIVE METHODS TO PROVE HIS TITLE TO ANY DISPUTED LAND
‘‘A party needs only one of the five methods to prove his title to any disputed land’’ PER.J. I. OKORO, JSC.
PROOF OF TITLE- WHERE THE PLAINTIFF FAILS TO PROVE TITLE, THE PROPER ORDER TO MAKE IS A DISMISSAL.
‘‘Where the plaintiff fails to prove title, the proper order to make is one of dismissal but where the plaintiff has manifestly established his case with respect to portions of the land in dispute he is entitled to declaration. This also applies to the defendant where there is a counterclaim as in this appeal.’’ PER O.RHODES-VIVOUR, JSC
PLEADING – DUTY OF A PLAINTIFF TO RELY ON HIS PLEADINGS
“The plaintiff must rely on his pleadings. He cannot plead traditional history and abandon his pleading to rely on acts of ownership over a long period of time. See Udeze v. Chidelo (1990) 1 NWLR (Pt. 125) 141 at 160”. PER N. S. NGWUTA, JSC
IDENTITY OF LAND- EVIDENCE OF A SURVEYOR IS THE BEST WAY TO RESOLVE THE IDENTITY OF LAND.
‘‘A plan prepared by a Surveyor and Evidence of a Surveyor is the best way to resolve the identity of the land.’’ PER O. RHODES-VIVOUR JSC
FAILURE TO APPEAL – A PARTY WHO HAS NOT APPEALED AGAINST THE FINDINGS OF THE TRIAL COURT IS DEEMED TO HAVE ADMITTED SAME.
‘‘Where a party has not appealed against a finding of the trial court or the Court of Appeal, he is deemed to have admitted same and as such he cannot be heard to question that finding on appeal. See Dabup V. Kolo (1993) 12 SCNJ I, Ijale V. Leventis & Co. Ltd (1959) SCNL; 255, (1959) 4 FSC108.’’ PER.J. I. OKORO, JSC
CLAIM FOR TITLE TO LAND – NATURE OF EVIDENCE IN A CLAIM FOR TITLE TO LAND
“The pleading of the devolution as well as the evidence in support must be reliable and credible or plausible otherwise the claim for title will fail. See Eze v. Atasie (2000) 6 SCNJ 209 at 218, Ehis v. Omo-Bare (1982) 5 SC 25”. PER N. S. NGWUTA, JSC
DECLARATION OF TITLE – THE COURT MAY GRANT A DECLARATION OVER A SMALL PORTION OF LAND THAN THAT CLAIMED,
‘‘A declaration of title can only be made in respect of land as claimed and not more. The court may grant a declaration over a small portion of land than that claimed, once title to the smaller portion is established by credible evidence. That is to say if the court dismisses a claim to a large area of land for lack of authentic identification the court can still go ahead and grant title to a smaller area if satisfied with the evidence led.’’ PER O. RHODES-VIVOUR JSC
PROOF OF TITLE TO LAND- FOR ACTS OF POSSESSION AND OWNERSHIP TO SUCCEED AS PROOF OF TITLE TO LAND, SUCH ACTS MUST BE NUMEROUS AND POSITIVE ENOUGH TO WARRANT EXCLUSIVE INFERENCE OF OWNERSHIP.
‘‘A party who relies on acts of possession and ownership of the land in dispute as evidence and in proof of his title to land must, to succeed, establish that such acts not only extend over a sufficient length of time but also that they are numerous and positive enough to warrant the inference of exclusive ownership of such land.See Idundun V. Okumagba(supra).’’PER .J. I. OKORO, JSC
RELIEFS- THE COURT IS NOT TO GRANT RELIEFS NOT SPECIFICALLY ASKED FOR BY PARTIES
‘‘This court has stated in quite a number of decisions that a court ought not to play the role of Father Christmas which can go around granting to parties relief which they have not specifically asked for. See Nwanya V. Nwanya (1987) 3 NWLR (pt. 62) 697, Umenweluaku V. Ezeana (1972) 5 SC 343, Western Steel Works Ltd V. Iron & Steel Workers Union (1986) 3 NWLR (pt. 30) 617, Odofin V. Ogu (1992) 3 NWLR (pt. 229) 350.’’ PER .J. I. OKORO, JSC.
JURISDICTION – A COURT HAS NO JURISDICTION TO SUPPLY ANY MISSING LINK IN A GENEALOGICAL TREE FROM PROGENITORS TO A CLAIMANT
“A court has no jurisdiction to supply any missing link in a genealogical tree from progenitors to a claimant. See Mogaji v. Cadbury (1986) 2 NWLR (Pt. 47) 393; Anyanwu v. Mbera (1992) 5 NWLR (Pt. 242) 386; Akinloye v. Eyiyola (1968) 2 NMLR 92; Owoade v. Omitola (1988) 2 NWLR (Pt. 77) 413 and Odi v. Iyala (2004) 4 SCNJ 35 at 54”. PER O. RHODES-VIVOUR, JSC
FINDINGS OF FACTS BY THE TRIAL COURT- AN APPELLATE COURT WOULD BE SLOW TO DISTURB OR REVERSE FINDINGS OF FACT MADE BY THE TRIAL COURT
‘‘Moreover, it is trite law that an appellate court would be slow to disturb or reverse findings of fact made by the trial court unless such findings are shown to be perverse having been based on inadmissible evidence or relevant and admissible evidence having been rejected which in either case occasioned a miscarriage of justice or that its findings were perverse. See Onwugbufor V. Okoye (1996) 1 NWLR (pt. 422) 252, Adimora V. Ajufo (1988) 3 NWLR (pt. 80) I, Okafor V. Idigo (1984) 1 SCNLR 481, Ebba V. Ogodo (1984) 1 SCNLR 372.’’PER. J. I. OKORO, JSC
FINDINGS OF FACT – DUTY OF THE APPELLATE COURT TO ACCORD HIGH REGARD TO THE FINDINGS OF THE TRIAL COURT
“When an Appeal Court addresses questions of fact it should accord high regard to the findings of the trial court, since that court saw the witnesses, was able to assess them and made findings on demeanour, which an Appeal Court cannot easily dislodge. So this court should not substitute its own opinion of the evidence for that of the lower court. See R. Benkay Nig Ltd v. Cardbury Nig. Plc 3SC (pt.iii) p.169”. PER O. RHODES-VIVOUR, JSC
PROOF OF TITLE TO LAND – WAYS OF PROVING TITLE TO LAND
‘‘There are at least five ways of proving title to land in this country. These methods have been well documented in the case of D. O. Idundun & 6 Ors. V. Daniel Okumagba (1976) NSCC 445 at 453 – 454.The five methods are as follows:
1. Proof by traditional evidence;
2. Proof by production of documents of title duly authenticated, in the sense that their due execution must be proved, unless they are produced from proper custody in circumstances giving rise to the presumption in favour of due execution in the case of documents twenty years old or more at the date of the contract.
3. Proof by acts of ownership in and over the land in dispute such as selling, leasing, making grant or farming on it or a portion thereof extending over a sufficient length of time numerous and positive enough to warrant the inference that the persons exercising such proprietary acts are the true owners of the land.
4. Proof by acts of long possession and enjoyment of the land which prima facie may be evidence of ownership not only of the particular piece of land with reference to which such acts are done, but also of other land so situate and connected therewith by locality or similarity that the presumption under Section 46 and 146 of the Evidence Act applies and the inference can be drawn that what is true of one piece of land is likely to be true of the other piece of land.
5. Proof of possession of connected or adjacent land in circumstances rendering it probable that the owner of such connected or adjacent land would in addition be the owner of the land in dispute. See also Obineche V. Akusobi (2010) 12 NWLR (pt. 1208) 383, Alii V. Alesinloye (2000) 6 NWLR (pt. 660) 177, Adeosun V. Jibesin (2001) 11 NWLR (pt. 724) 290, Mogaji V. Cadbury Nig. Ltd (1985) 2 NWLR (pt. 7) 393, Ogunleye V. Oni (1990) 2 NWLR (pt. 135) 745, Okonkwo V. Okolo (1988) NWLR (pt. 79) 632.’’ PER.J. I.OKORO, JSC
CLAIM FOR TITLE TO LAND – INGREDIENTS A PLAINTIFF MUST PLEAD AND PROVE IN A CLAIM FOR TITLE TO LAND BASED ON TRADITIONAL HISTORY
“In a claim for title to land based on traditional history, the plaintiff has to plead and prove each of the following:
(1) The person who founded the land and exercised acts of possession.
(2) The persons on whom the title to the land devolved from its founder to the plaintiff. See Obioha v. Duru (1994) 10 SCNJ 48 at 61 ratios 6 and 7, Piaro v.Tenalo&ors (1976) 12 SC 31”. PER N. S. NGWUTA, JSC
DECLARATION OF TITLE – UNRELIABLE TRADITIONAL EVIDENCE SUPPORTED WITH ACTS OF OWNERSHIP AND POSSESSION IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO ENTITLE A PARTY TO DECLARATION OF TITLE
‘‘The position of the law is that when both sides rely on evidence of tradition which turned out to be unreliable and further supported their case with acts of ownership and possession something more is required before a party would be entitled to a declaration.’’ PER O. RHODES-VIVOUR, JSC
TRADITIONAL HISTORY – DUTY OF A PARTY WHO RELIES ON TRADITIONAL HISTORY AS HIS ROOT OF TITLE
“The law is now settled that where a person relies on traditional history as his root of title to land, the onus is on him to plead the root of title and the names and history of his ancestors”. PER. J. A. FABIYI, JSC
CASES CITED
STATUTES REFERRED TO
None
CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT