CORAM
HON. JUSTICE A. A. B. GUMEL .JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL
HON. JUSTICE U. A. OGAKWU . JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL
HON. JUSTICE M. DANJUMA. JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL
PARTIES
ALHAJI TIJJANI SALEH
APPELLANTS
HAJJA KORE KOLO LAWAN
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
LAND LAW, PROPERTY LAW, INHERITANCE LAW, ISLAMIC LAW, EVIDENCE LAW, CIVIL PROCEDURE, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The Respondent instituted an action against the Appellant, claiming ownership of Plot No. 12 on BO/146, measuring approximately 100 x 300 meters and situated in Geidam town, Yobe State. The Respondent claimed to have inherited the land from her deceased brother and sought declarations of title, damages for trespass, and injunctive relief.
The Appellant counterclaimed, asserting that he had purchased the land from the Respondent’s deceased brother in 1978 for N2,000 before his death. The Respondent relied on a letter of administration, while the Appellant produced documentary evidence of the sale transaction. The trial court found in favor of the Respondent, leading to this appeal.
HELD
1. The appeal was allowed.
2. The judgment of the Yobe State High Court delivered by Hon. Justice H. L. Musa on 28th October 2022, in Suit No: YBS/HC/GDM/02CV/2018, was set aside.
3. The court declared the Appellant as the lawful and legal owner of Plot No. 12 on BO/146, situated at Geidam, Yobe State.
4. The Respondent was restrained from laying claim to the plot.
5. No order as to costs.
ISSUES
1. Whether the right of inheritance confers title to the land on the Respondent considering evidence of sale to Appellant before the death of Respondent’s brother?
2. Whether the purported possession of the land by the Respondent without regard to the purchase by the Appellant can ripen into ownership?
3. Whether the documents relied upon by the Respondent confer title against the transfer documents held by the Appellant?
4. Whether the Appellant’s counter-claim was properly proved regarding the deceased’s divestment of ownership through sale?
RATIONES DECIDENDI
BURDEN OF PROOF – PRINCIPLE OF HE WHO ASSERTS MUST PROVE:
“There is an old maxim: incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat. It means that the burden of proving a fact rests on the party who asserts the affirmative of the issue and not upon the party who denies it, for a negative is incapable of proof.” – Per Mohammed Danjuma, JCA
COMPETING CLAIMS OF OWNERSHIP – DETERMINATION OF BETTER TITLE:
“It is trite law that where there are two competing claims of ownership of a parcel of land and the parties are each relying on acts of ownership and actual possession, the party who can prove a better title is the actual owner.” – Per Mohammed Danjuma, JCA
INHERITANCE UNDER ISLAMIC LAW – PRINCIPLE OF INHERITING ONLY LEGALLY OWNED PROPERTY:
“Under Islamic Law, an heir can only inherit what was legally owned bythe deceased relation”.- Per Mohammed Danjuma, JCA
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE – SUPREMACY OVER ORAL TESTIMONY:
“The law is well settled by several authorities that once there is a document evidencing the sale of landed property, oral evidence will be excluded, and the question of who indeed holds possession must be resolved by reference to the documents tendered in evidence. Why? Because a document speaks for itself.” – Per Mohammed Danjuma, JCA
LETTER OF ADMINISTRATION – EFFECT ON PROPERTY RIGHTS:
“The letter of administration issued in the Respondent’s favor by the High Court of Justice on 22nd January 1997 is not a document of title. Rather, the Respondent was given power to act as administrator of the land, and the grant was allocated to the Respondent’s brother, Zanna Nganzaima Geidam, from whom the Appellant derived his title.” – Per Mohammed Danjuma, JCA
ACQUISITION OF TITLE – METHODS OF PROVING OWNERSHIP:
“It is settled law that, to succeed in a case of ownership of land, a party must establish the method by which they acquired the title.” – Per Mohammed Danjuma, JCA
PRESUMPTION OF AUTHENTICITY – DOCUMENTS OVER 20 YEARS:
“By virtue of Section 155 of the Evidence Act, 2011, these documents, which emanated from the Ministry and were officially signed or endorsed, purport or prove, from the file (Exhibit D3), that the lower court ought to presume that, since they were made more than 20 years ago, they are presumed to bear the signature or were executed and attested by the person by whom they purport to have been executed and attested.” – Per Mohammed Danjuma, JCA
PRINCIPLE OF NEMO DAT QUOD NON HABET:
“At the time of his death in 1979, the deceased did not leave behind Plot No. 12 on BO/146, situated at GRA Geidam, Yobe State, for inheritance. This is based on the principle of nemo dat quod non habet—one cannot give what he does not have.” – Per Mohammed Danjuma, JCA
LONG POSSESSION – EFFECT ON TITLE:
“Claiming ‘long possession’ without specifying the precise duration is flawed, as it leaves the court with nothing but speculation. However, speculation and justice are mutually exclusive. In any case, the Respondent’s purported long and undisturbed possession of the disputed land, without regard to the valid purchase of the land by the Appellant, cannot ripen into ownership.” – Per Mohammed Danjuma, JCA
RIGHT OF OCCUPANCY – EVIDENTIARY VALUE:
“The issuance of a right of occupancy or a Certificate of Occupancy, or the obtainment of the same, is not conclusive evidence of the Respondent’s interest or valid title against the Appellant. It is only prima facie evidence of such title, without more.” – Per Mohammed Danjuma, JCA
STANDARD OF PROOF IN CIVIL CASES:
“In ordinary or commonplace civil proceedings, the standard of proof is based on the preponderance of evidence or the balance of probabilities. In determining the preponderance of evidence or balance of probabilities, the evidence adduced by the plaintiff should be placed on one side of an imaginary scale, while the evidence presented by the defendant should be placed on the other side, and both should be weighed together to see which preponderates.” – Per Mohammed Danjuma, JCA
COUNTER-CLAIM – NATURE AND PROOF:
“A counterclaim is a claim for relief asserted against an opposing party after an original claim has been made. It is not only a claim by the Defendant against the Plaintiff in the same proceedings; it is regarded as an independent and separate action in which the Defendant/Counterclaimant is in opposition to the Plaintiff.” – Per Mohammed Danjuma, JCA
EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE – DOCUMENTARY VS ORAL EVIDENCE:
“Documents of title are clear evidence of transaction between the parties”- Per Mohammed Danjuma, JCA
CASES CITED
STATUTES REFERRED TO
1. Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended)
3. Land Use Act, Cap L5, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004