ALHAJI MUSA KULE v. HAJIA TOBI MODU & ANOR

CORAM

Ali Abubakar Babandi Gumel Justice of the Court of Appeal

Ugochukwu Anthony Ogakwu Justice of the Court of Appeal

Mohammed Danjuma Justice of the Court of Appeal

PARTIES

ALHAJI MUSA KULE

APPELLANTS

1. HAJIA TOBI MODU

2. MUHAMMED INUWA a.k.a MAI KUDI

RESPONDENTS

AREA(S) OF LAW

CIVIL PROCEDURE, LAND LAW, PROPERTY LAW, EVIDENCE LAW, DECLARATION OF TITLE, BURDEN OF PROOF, EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE, APPELLATE JURISDICTION, TRESPASS, PROOF OF OWNERSHIP

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Appellant (Alhaji Musa Kule) was the claimant before the High Court of Yobe State, Damaturu, where he sought declarations that plots Nos. 220 & 221 ON YBTP/027/R with letter of allocation and grant of right of occupancy bearing the name of Abubakar Baba Yawu at Sani Daura Estate Potiskum Road Damaturu were his properties. He also claimed for a declaration of valid title over the land, declarations that the acts of the defendants constituted trespass, an order directing the defendants to vacate the land, and an order directing the defendants to pay ₦100,000,000 as general damages plus costs.

The Respondents, as defendants at the High Court, filed a joint statement of defense of 35 paragraphs, and included what appeared to be a counterclaim seeking an order for the Claimant to transfer the original title document under his possession to the 1st defendant, a declaration that the 1st defendant is the legal title holder of the subject matter in dispute, and an order directing the claimant to pay damages of ₦1,000,000 for wasting their time without justification.

After issues were joined, the matter went to trial. The Claimant/Appellant testified as PW1 and called five other witnesses. At the defense stage, the 1st defendant/Respondent testified as DW1, followed by DW2, DW3, DW4, and DW5. The learned trial Judge conducted a visit to the locus in quo before ordering written addresses to be filed and exchanged.

In its judgment delivered on June 27, 2024, the High Court found in favor of the Defendants/Respondents. The Court held that the defendants had established their defense against the claimant and that the 1st defendant was entitled to the claims sought in paragraphs 35 A-C of the Defendants’ statement of defense.

Dissatisfied with this judgment, the Appellant filed an appeal to the Court of Appeal on July 26, 2024.

HELD

1. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment of the High Court of Yobe State delivered on June 27, 2024, in Suit No. YBS/DT/HC/18CV/2023.

2. The Court held that in an action for declaration of title, the Appellant must succeed on the strength of his case and not on the weakness of the defense.

3. The Court found that there were contradictions in the testimony of the Appellant’s witnesses, particularly regarding whether the land was fenced and had structures on it. PW3 stated under cross-examination that the plot he sold to the Appellant was not fenced, while the Appellant (PW1) stated that the land he bought from PW3 was fenced.

4. The Court held that the trial Court had properly evaluated the evidence before it and reached the conclusion that the Appellant could not lay any claim to Plot No. 220 and 221 on YBTP/027/R, the subject matter of the case.

5. The Court ordered ₦200,000 costs against the Appellant in favor of the Respondent.

ISSUES

1. Whether or not, having regard to the declarations of the appellant as contained in the writ of summons and statement of claim, the claimant has proven his case to warrant the trial Court entering judgment in his favor?

2. Whether or not the trial Court was right to have speculated by holding that the statement of claim and the statement of defense are entirely different, which is not captured on the pleadings of the parties at the trial Court?

3. Whether or not failure of the trial Court to consider evidence adduced by the appellant at the trial Court and proffer probative value on them by properly evaluating same has occasioned serious miscarriage of justice to the appellant?

RATIONES DECIDENDI

PROOF OF OWNERSHIP OF LAND – FIVE METHODS

“There are five ways in which ownership/title to land may be proved. They are: 1. Proof of traditional evidence; 2. Proof of acts of ownership, acts by persons claiming the land such as selling, leasing, renting out all or part of the land, or farming on it or otherwise utilizing the land beneficially such acts of ownership extending over a sufficient length of time and numerous and positive enough to warrant the inference that he is the true owner; 3. Proof of production of document of title which must be authenticated; 4. Proof of ownership by acts of long possession and enjoyment in respect of the land to which the acts are done; 5. Proof of possession of connected or adjacent land, circumstances rendering it probable that the owner of the land in dispute, may rank also as means of proving ownership of the land in dispute.” – Per ALI ABUBAKAR BABANDI GUMEL, J.C.A. (quoting OLABODE RHODES-VIVOUR, JSC in DAKOLO & ORS v. REWANE-DAKOLO & ORS (2011) LPELR-915 (SC))

BURDEN OF PROOF IN CIVIL CASES – PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE

“It is the law that the burden of proof in civil cases on balance of probability or preponderance of evidence arising from a careful evaluation of the evidence adduced by both sides, placed on the imaginary scale of justice to see which side tilts. The evidence would need to be credible, probable and worthy of weight. The standard of proof is not proof beyond reasonable doubt as required in criminal cases.” – Per ALI ABUBAKAR BABANDI GUMEL, J.C.A.

EVIDENTIAL VALUE OF TESTIMONY DURING CROSS-EXAMINATION

“…it is settled law that evidence elicited from the cross-examination of a defence witness which is in line with the facts pleaded by the Plaintiff form part of the evidence produced by the plaintiff in support of facts pleaded in the statement of claim and can be relied upon in proof of the facts in dispute between the parties.” – Per ALI ABUBAKAR BABANDI GUMEL, J.C.A. (quoting WALTER SAMUEL NKANU ONNOGHEN, JSC in ADEOSUN v. GOV. OF EKITI STATE & ORS (2012) LPELR-7843 (SC))

DECLARATION OF TITLE – BURDEN OF PROOF

“In an action for declaration of title, the Appellant must succeed on the strength of his case and not on the weakness of the defence.” – Per ALI ABUBAKAR BABANDI GUMEL, J.C.A.

EFFECT OF CONTRADICTIONS IN WITNESS TESTIMONY

“It is trite that contradictions in the testimony of a witness in examination-in-chief and his testimony under cross-examination amounts to no evidence at all on account of contradiction. In the case of EZEMBA v. IBENEME & ANOR (2004) 14 NWLR (PT. 894) 617, the Supreme Court held that no witness who has given oath to material inconsistent evidence is entitled to the honour of credibility. Such a witness does not deserve to be treated as a truthful witness.” – Per ALI ABUBAKAR BABANDI GUMEL, J.C.A.

EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE – TRIAL COURT’S DUTY

“A trial Court is duty-bound to examine evidence on both sides before proceeding to deliver judgment. From the record before this Court, the trial Court, after restating the summary of the evidence adduced by both sides through their respective witnesses and final written addresses, the Court proceeded to hold that the evidence of the Defendant/Respondents weigh heavier on the imaginary scale than the evidence of the Plaintiff/Appellant, thus complying with the requirement of proper evaluation of evidence of parties in a dispute.” – Per ALI ABUBAKAR BABANDI GUMEL, J.C.A.

APPELLATE INTERFERENCE WITH TRIAL COURT’S FINDINGS – LIMITATIONS

“It is within the province of the trial Judge who saw, heard and assessed the witnesses to evaluate and ascribe probative value to the evidence adduced. Where the trial Court unquestionably evaluates and justifiably appraises the facts, it is not the business of an appellate Court to substitute its own views for the views of the trial Court.” – Per UGOCHUKWU ANTHONY OGAKWU, J.C.A.

TRIAL COURT’S FINDINGS – WHEN APPELLATE COURT WILL NOT INTERFERE

“Having insightfully considered the Records of Appeal, I find that the evaluation of evidence and the findings made by the lower Court flow from the evidence on record. Where the findings of the Court have been judicially and judiciously arrived at flowing from the evidence before it, an appellate Court has no jurisdiction to interfere.” – Per UGOCHUKWU ANTHONY OGAKWU, J.C.A.

TRIAL COURT’S EVALUATION PROCESS

“The trial Court considers the evidence adduced, decides which evidence to prefer based on how the evidence preponderates and then makes logical and consequential findings of facts.” – Per UGOCHUKWU ANTHONY OGAKWU, J.C.A.

POSSESSION AND TITLE – LEGAL SIGNIFICANCE

“A person who has title over a piece of land, though not in de facto physical possession is deemed in the eyes of the law, to be the person in possession. This is because the law attaches possession to title and ascribed it to the person who has title. Such possession is the legal possession which is sometimes also called constructive possession.” – Per ALI ABUBAKAR BABANDI GUMEL, J.C.A. (quoting CARRENA v. AROWOLO (2008) LPELR-833 (SC))

CONTRADICTIONS – EFFECT ON WITNESS CREDIBILITY

APPELLATE INTERVENTION – WHEN WARRANTED

“The court held that where the trial Court draws erroneous inferences from the evidence then this Court will intervene.” – Per ALI ABUBAKAR BABANDI GUMEL, J.C.A.

VISIT TO LOCUS IN QUO – EVIDENTIARY VALUE

“The evidence elicited during the cross-examination of DW1 and DW2 form part of the evidence pleaded by the Appellant’s witnesses especially PW3 who affirmed at the trial Court that the land he sold to the Appellant was not fenced and nor did it have any structure on it. PW3, of course, is in good position to know all the facts about the land in dispute.” – Per ALI ABUBAKAR BABANDI GUMEL, J.C.A.

Legalpedia Citation: (2025-04) Legalpedia 89352 (CA)

In the Court of Appeal

GOMBE

Wed Apr 9, 2025

Suit Number: CA/G/36/2024