CORAM
M.E.OGUNDARE JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
U. MOHAMMED JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
S.U. ONU JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
A.I. IGUH JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
IBRAHIM TANKO MUHAMMAD (Lead Judgment JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
PARTIES
ALHAJI KARIMU ADISA APPELLANTS
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The plaintiffs instituted action in the high court claiming title to vast area of land on the basis of grant and damages in trespass against the defendant. The plaintiff’s claim was in effect against the defendant’s family but sued the defendant personally and led evidence of partition. The trial court without making findings of fact gave judgment in favour of the plaintiffs.
HELD
The court departed from its earlier decision in Oyeniran v. Egbetola and held that the High Court had jurisdiction over land subject of a customary right of occupancy but ordered a retrial.
ISSUES
Whether the Court below was not in error in failing to see that the trial court lacks jurisdiction over claims as formulated by the plaintiff having regard to the provisions of the Land Use Act particularly Sections 39 and 41 thereofWhether or not the plaintiffs who pleaded and based their root of title in an action for Declaration of Title on traditional history of a particular grant can rely on grant by another person and exercise of acts of ownership and are these conflicting claims not fatal to their claim of title.Whether in a claim for declaration of title and injunction against a particular party, in his personal capacity, the court can give judgment in respect of the entire family land and can such judgment bind the family
RATIONES DECIDENDI
THE DUTY OF A PLAINTIFF TO BRING TO COURT A PARTY WHOSE PRESENCE IS CRUCIAL TO THE RESOLUTION OF THE CASE
The plaintiff has a duty to bring to court a party whose presence is crucial to the resolution of the case – Ayoola J.S.C.
A PLAINTIFF RELYING ON ACQUISITION OF TITLE BY GRANT HAS A DUTY TO PROVE SUCH GRANT TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE COURT
Where the plaintiff relies on acquisition of title by grant and fails to prove it, the court cannot make a case for him on a different form of acquisition. Where in a claim for a declaration of title to land, title is claimed by grant, the court has to be sure of the nature of the grant before a declaration is granted- Ayoola J.S.C
LIMITATION OF THE UNLIMITED JURISDICTION OF THE STATE HIGH COURT
The unlimited jurisdiction of the State High Court in civil and criminal matters is only subject to the provisions of the Constitution. It will be seen clearly that neither the Land Use Act in its entirety nor section 41 thereof or any other law for that matter could take away, limit, restrict or detract from that unlimited jurisdiction- Katsina- Alu J.S.C
CASES CITED
Odofin v. Ayoola (1984) NSCC, 711, 731Ekpere v. Aforije (1972) All NLR (Pt. 1) 220Bronik Motors Ltd, v. Wema Bank Ltd. (1983) 6 SCI 58 at 195; Tukur v. Government of Gongola State (1989) 4 NWLR (pt. 117) 517 at 541-2; Savannah Bank of Nigeria v. Pan Atlantic Shipping Trans Ltd. (1987) 1 NWLR (pt.49) 212 at 229; Salami v. Chairman LEDB (1989) 5 NWLR (Pt.123) 53
STATUTES REFERRED TO
The 1979 ConstitutionLand Use Act