CORAM

---

Yargata Byenchit Nimpar Justice, Court of Appeal

Gabriel Omoniyi Kolawole Justice, Court of Appeal

Okon Efreti Abang Justice, Court of Appeal

---

PARTIES

---

1. ALHAJI MOSHOOD ODUTOLA

2. ALHAJI MOJEED OLUSEGUN ODUTOLA (For Themselves And On Behalf Of Other Children And Beneficiaries Of The Estate Of ALHAJI JIMOH AKINTOLA ODUTOLA)

APPELLANTS 

---

1. ADEMOLA ADENIRAN FIDIPOTE

2. MR ALIU KAMALDEEN OLAKUNLE

3. MR ABIODUN DAUDA HASSAN

4. MR ADEKUNLE OKUNLENU

5. ALH KABIRU YOMI ANIFOWOSHE

6. MRS OLUFUNMILAYO ODUYALE

7. MR ONASILE IDOWU IDRIS

8. MR ISIAKA AYOBAMIJI SERIKI

9. IFENAIKE FATAI

RESPONDENTS 

---

AREA(S) OF LAW

---

APPEAL, EVIDENCE, LAND LAW, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

 

 

---

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Appellants claim that the 1st Respondent, together with some people, encroached into the piece of land, the subject of the suit in the lower Court, which was said to have begun sometimes after the demise of the Appellants’ late father, Alhaji Jimoh Akintola Odutola, in the year 2010. The said breach reportedly continued unabated by the Respondents until the suit was thereafter instituted. The Appellants claimed that the land belonged to their late father.

The Respondents in their defence to the Appellants’ claim in the lower Court, affirmed that the Respondents’ land, distinct from the Appellants’ land, was bequeathed on the 1st Respondent’s extended family by one of their ancestors named “Ademuyewo Fidipote”, who was said to be paramount ruler of the Ijebu-Ode community between 1852-1886. The 1st Respondent contended that the land in dispute is different from what is being claimed by the Appellants, and that their predecessors-in-title have been in possession of their land since 1925, same devolved to the to the 1st Respondent and his siblings in 1980, even in the lifetime of the Appellants’ father. Other Respondents in this appeal reportedly derived their roots of title either from the 1st Respondent or one Mustafau, who was the 1st Respondent’s nephew.

In its considered judgment the trial judge found that “the claim of the Claimants failed in totality”, and proceeded to dismiss it.

The Appellants were aggrieved and initiated the instant appeal.

 

 

---

HELD

---

Appeal dismissed

 

---

ISSUES

---

1. Whether, on the state of pleadings in this suit, the Respondents can be said to have joined issues with the Appellants in this suit as to place any burden of proof on the Appellants?

2. If issue 1 is answered in the affirmative, whether the Appellants have established their case as required by law and are entitled to the relief’s sought?

3. Whether the learned trial Judge rightly awarded damages in favour of the Respondents who had no claim before the Court?

 

---

RATIONES DECIDENDI

---

COURTS – CONDUCT OF COURTS IN GIVING JUDGMENT IN AN ACTION FOR DECLARATION OF TITLE TO LAND – CONDITIONS TO BE SATISFIED BY A CLAIMANT IN AN ACTION FOR TITLE TO LAND

---

…the trite law to the effect that in an action for declaration of title to land, Court would always give judgment to the party who pleaded a better title and established same with cogent and credible evidence.

The Supreme Court in OWAKAH V. RSHPDA & ANOR (2022) LPELR-57950 (SC), stated the law succinctly thus:

“The law is settled that to succeed in a case of declaration of title to land, a party must plead and prove the method by which he acquired the said title, ownership of land cannot be claimed by a party without establishing ownership. See FASORO VS BEYIOKU (1988) 2 NWLR (Pt 76) 263, NWOFOR VS NWOSU (1992) 9 NWLR (Pt 264) 229, ONWUGBUFOR V. OKOYE (1996) 1 NWLR (Pt 424) 2521 UNITED BANK FOR AFRICA PLC V. AYINKE (2000) 7 NWLR (Pt 663) 831, OYENEYIN V. AKINKUGBE (2010) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1184) 265.

A claimant must satisfy the Court on the following:

(a) the precise nature of the title claimed, that is to say, whether it is title by virtue of original ownership, customary grant, conveyance, sale under customary law, long possession, or otherwise; and

(b) evidence establishing the nature of the title claimed.

See OBAWOLE V. COKER (1994) 5 NWLR (Pt 345) 4161, ADESANYA V. ADERONMU (2000) 9 NWLR (Pt. 672) 370 @ 3821, EDOHOEKET V. INYANG (2010) 7 NWLR (Pt 1192) 251, OBINECHE VS AKUSOBI (2010) 12 NWLR (Pt 1208) 383.” – Per G. O. Kolawole, JCA

 

---

TITLE TO LAND – WHETHER OWNERSHIP OF LAND CAN BE CLAIMED WITHOUT ESTABLISHING TITLE TO LAND

---

The law is trite that ownership of land cannot be claimed by a party without establishing the root of such title to the land. – Per G. O. Kolawole, JCA

 

---

COURTS – DISCRETIONARY POWERS OF COURT TO GRANT THE RELIEF FOR A DECLARATION OF TITLE TO LAND

---

It must be noted, as I had earlier stated, that the claim of the Appellants before the lower Court was for declaration of title to land as the principal relief, an equitable relief not usually granted, as a matter of course, but at the sole discretion of the Court, that must be both judicially and judiciously exercised. See ABOSELDEHYDE LABORATORIES PLC v. UNION MERCHANTS (2013) LPELR-20180(SC); ABIOYE V ISMAIL & ORS (2023) LPELR-59828(SC).

A Court usually grant the relief of a declaration of title to land, only in the circumstance in which the Court is of the opinion that the party seeking such relief is fully entitled to the positive exercise of the discretionary power of Court in his favour. See ODOFIN v. AYOOLA (1984) 11 SC 72, EDOZIEN v. EDOZIEN (1998) 13 NWLR (Pt 580) 133. – Per G. O. Kolawole, JCA

 

---

UNDERTAKING AS TO DAMAGES – WHERE THERE IS AN UNDERTAKING AS TO DAMAGES – THE EFFECTS OF AN UNDERTAKING AS TO DAMAGES

---

It is apparent from the record that the Appellants, prior to the trial, gave an undertaking as to damages when applying for an interlocutory injunction. See OKPALA & ANOR V. IBEME & ORS and except in certain rare factual situations, undertaking as to damages ought be given in the circumstance of the case. See CBN v. KOTOYE (1989) 1 (Pt 98) 419. It serves the ends of justice in the provision of minimal safeguards against the ill that may be suffered by the party who would ultimately succeeds.IHECHUKWU v. IWUGO (1989) 2 NWLR (Pt 101) 99. The Appellant contended that no specific sum was undertaken as the damages, this argument, in my opinion is puerile, as an undertaking as to damages, as in this instance, does have to be a deposit or a stated amount, but the damages is an enforceable promise to pay what might have been suffered by way of damages to be determined later. See PRAYING BAND OF C&S v. UDOKWU (1991) 3 NWLR (Pt 182) 716, ANIKE v. EMEHULU (1990) 1 NWLR (Pt 128) 603,  – Per G. O. Kolawole, JCA

 

---

COURTS – CONDUCT OF APPELLATE COURTS WHERE AWARD OF DAMAGES BY TRIAL/LOWER COURTS IS NOT SHOWN TO BE EXCESSIVE

---

I have not seen the reason for the Court to interfere with award of the damages in the instance, neither could it be shown that the award was outrightly excessive or that the lower Court proceeded on a wrong principle in the award of the said damages. See SYNDICATED INVESTMENT HOLDINGS LTD v. NITEL TRUSTEES LTD & ANOR (2022) LPELR-58841(SC) even though the regular practice is to conduct a collateral proceeding in order to ascertain the loss sustained by reason of the injunction granted in favour of the Appellants. – Per G. O. Kolawole, JCA

 

---

TITLE TO LAND – CONDITION FOR A PARTY TO SUCCEED IN A CASE FOR DECLARATION OF TITLE TO LAND

---

The law is settled that for a party to succeed in a case of declaration of title to land, the party must plead and prove the method by which he acquired the said title. Therefore, a party can only be entitled to the ownership of a land in dispute by establishing the root of title to the land and by proving to the satisfaction of the Court that his root of title is a better title than the title claimed by the other party. See the case of OWAKAH V. RSHPDA & ANOR (2022) LPELR-57950(SC), where it was held as follows:

“The law is trite that in an action for declaration of title to land, the Court would always give judgment to the party with a better title as established in evidence. See Aromire Vs. Awoyemi (1972) 7 All NLR 10 per Coker JSC.” – Per Y. B. Nimpar, JCA

 

---

CASES CITED

---

---

STATUTES REFERRED TO

---

1. Evidence Act, 2011

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGEMENT