CENTRAL BANK OF NIGERIA VS SAIDU H. AHMED & ORS
June 24, 2025OBA JOSEPH ADEYEMI AJAYI V. OBA JOSEPH ABOLARIN JOLAYEMI
June 24, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (2001) Legalpedia (SC) 11527
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
HOLDEN AT ABUJA
Thu May 24, 2001
Suit Number: SC 224/1993
CORAM
A.B. WALI
OLAJIDE OLATAWURA., JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
A.I. IGUH
A.I. KATSINA-ALU
U.A. KALGO
PARTIES
ALHAJI GONI KYARI APPELLANTS
ALHAJI CIROMA ALKALI,HON. ATTORNEY-GENERAL (BORNO STATE),HON. COMMISSIONER FOR LAND AND SURVEY (BORNO STATE) RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The lower court reversed the decision of the trial court awarding title to the land in dispute on the grounds that the respondent had been in possession for about 11 years and that the respondent got a certificate of occupancy with respect to the land. The appellant led evidence of ownership before the Land Use Act
HELD
The court allowed the appeal and restored the decision of the trial court.
ISSUES
1. Whether the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal were right in dismissing the appellant’s counter-claim. 2. Whether the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal were right when they held that the appellant did not prove the identity of the land in dispute. 3. Whether having regard to the pleadings and evidence led, the judgment of the Court of Appeal is not against the weight of evidence i.e. who, between the appellant and the 1st respondent proved a better title. 4. Whether the Konduga Local Government and Borno State Certificates of Occupancy (i.e. Exhibits “A” and “B” respectively) were unlawfully and illegally issued to the 1st respondent.
RATIONES DECIDENDI
WHETHER POSSESSION IS CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE OF TITLE UNDER SECTION 45 OF THE EVIDENCE ACT
Section 145 of the Evidence Act, however, merely creates a rebuttable presumption of ownership and no more. Its operation can have no place but is automatically dislodged when another person proves a better title to the property in dispute-
EFFECT OF CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY
Existence of a certificate of occupancy is merely a prima facie-evidence of title to the land it covers and no more-
ACTION IN REPRESENTATIVE CAPACITY
Once the pleadings and the evidence of a party conclusively disclose a representative capacity and it is clear that the case was fought throughout in that capacity, the trial court can properly and justifiably enter judgment for and/ or against the party concerned in such representative capacity, even if an amendment to reflect that capacity had not been applied for and obtained-
CASES CITED
1. Lababedi and Another v. Lagos Metal Industries Ltd. and Another (1973) 8 N.S.C.C. 1.|2. Romaine v. Romaine (1992) 4 NWLR (Pt.238) 650|3. Afolabi and others v. Adekunle and Another (1983) 2 SCNLR 141 or (1983) 14 NSCC 398;|4. Ayeni v. Sowemimo (1982) 5 S.C. 60;|5. Dokubo v. Bob Manuel (1967) 1 All NLR 113 at 121,|6. Mba Nta and Others v. Ede Anigbo and Another (1972) 5 S.C. 156 at 174 – 176|7. Mustafa Lawal v. Abdul little (1967) NMLR 155,|8. D. 0. Idundun v. Daniel Okumagba (1976) 9 – 10 S.C. 227 at 249,|9. Da Costa v. Ikomi (1968) 1 All N.L.R. 394 at 398.
STATUTES REFERRED TO
1. The Evidence Act|2. The Land Use Act|
