CORAM
ABDU ABOKI (PJ)
HON. JUSTICE JAMES SHEHU ABIRIYI
PARTIES
ALHAJI UMAR IDRIS APPELLANTS
KACHALLA BUBA SEINE RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The Plaintiff/Appellant instituted an action in the High Court of Taraba State, against the Defendant/Counter Claimant/Respondent for a declaration of title to land and an order revoking the customary right of occupancy issued to the Respondent and cost of the suit. The Respondent on his own part counterclaimed against the Appellant for a declaration that his customary certificate of occupancy is still valid and subsisting, a declaration that the acts of the Appellant on the said land amounts to trespass and a perpetual injunction restraining the Appellant from further acts of trespass on the said land amongst others. The facts of the case are that the Appellant alleged that he purchased the said land in dispute in 2011 and was rearing cattle on it undisturbed until 2016. He further stated that he planted eucalyptus trees on the said land in dispute and that it was the Respondent’s shepherd that helped him in planting the trees and the Respondent did not protest. In defence and proof of his counterclaim, the Respondent alleged that the land was given to him for grazing. Upon occupying the land for several years without any disturbance or challenge from anybody, the Respondent alleged that he decided to obtain a customary certificate of occupancy which was granted to him sometime in 2005 and that since then he has been paying ground rent. Upon obtaining the customary certificate of occupancy, the Local Government further advised the Respondent to apply for another certificate of occupancy since the land was divided into two by a road passing through it. However, the Respondent instructed his son to do so and was issued another certificate of occupancy in the name of the Respondent’s son. The Respondent further alleged that the Appellant entered the land with his cattle and has since refused to vacate the land on the premise that he bought it. After considering the evidence of both parties, the trial court dismissed the claim of the Plaintiff/Appellant and entered judgment in favour of the Defendant/Counter Claimant/Respondent. Dissatisfied with the decision of the trial court, the Appellant filed a notice of appeal on the grounds that the trial court ought to have relied on acts of possession in recent time to determine the title.
HELD
Appeal Dismissed
ISSUES
Whether having rightly found as facts that the traditional history relied upon in proof of title by both parties was of equal weight, the trial court ought to have made recourse to acts of possession in recent time to determine title? Whether the trial court was not wrong to have placed heavy probative value on the bundle of exhibits tendered by the respondent’s counsel from the bar in declaring title of the disputed land to the respondent. Whether the findings of the trial court that the appellant did not prove his root of title as pleaded is not perverse? Whether the trial court was not wrong in law for rejecting the evidence of PW3 which established that the respondent’s certificate of occupancy was issued in error?
RATIONES DECIDENDI
BURDEN OF PROOF – ON WHO LIES THE BURDEN OF PROOF IN CIVIL CASES –SECTION 133&134 OF THE EVIDENCE ACT
“By virtue of Sections 133 and 134 of the Evidence Act, in civil cases the burden of proof is on the party who asserts a fact to prove same for he who asserts must prove. The standard of proof required is on the preponderance of evidence and balance of probabilities. A party in a civil case must prove his/its case on credible evidence of his/its witnesses and is not at liberty in law to make a case or rely on the weakness of the defendant’s case in order to succeed. See Daodu vs. NNPC (1998) 2 NWLR (Pt. 538) 355 and Agbi vs. Ogbeh (2006) 11 NWLR (Pt. 990) 65”.
PROOF OF TITLE TO LAND – WAYS OF PROVING TITLE TO LAND
“Since 1976 when Idundun vs. Okumagba was decided by the Supreme Court, the Courts have held that title to land can be established by traditional evidence; (2) Production of documents of title duly authenticated in the sense that their due execution must be proved; (3) By positive acts of ownership extending over a sufficient length of time; (4) By acts of long possession and enjoyment of the land; (5) By Proof of possession of connected or adjacent land in circumstances rendering it probable that the owner of such connected or adjacent land would in addition, be owner of the land in dispute. The law is that the establishment of one of the ways enumerated above is sufficient proof of ownership of the land. See Idundun vs. Okumagba (1976) 9 – 10 SC 337, Ayoola vs. Odofin (1984) 11 SC 120 and Nkado vs. Obiano (1997) 5 NWLR (Pt. 503) 31.
DECLARATORY RELIEFS – CONDITIONS FOR THE GRANT OF DECLARATORY RELIEFS
“Declaratory reliefs are not granted as a matter of course and on a platter of gold. They are only granted when credible evidence has been led by the person seeking the declaratory relief. A declaratory relief will be granted where the plaintiff is entitled to the relief in the fullest meaning of the word. It is a requirement of the law that the person seeking the declaratory relief must plead and prove his claim for declaratory relief without relying on the evidence called by the defendant. Such declaratory relief is not granted even on admission by the defendant. However, there is nothing wrong in a plaintiff taking advantage of any evidence adduced by the defence which tends to establish the plaintiff’s title. See Anyaru vs. Mandilas Ltd (2007) 4 SCNJ 288, Chukwumah vs. S.P.D.C (Nig) Ltd (1993) LPELR-864 SC page 64 – 65, Matanmi & Ors vs. Dada & Anor (2013) LPELR-19929, Oguanuhu vs. Chiegboka (2013) 2 SCNJ 693 and Akinboni & Ors vs. Akintope & Ors (2016) LPELR-40184.”
PLEADINGS- NATURE OF PLEADINGS
“The law on pleadings is firmly established. And the law is that parties are strictly bound by their pleadings and they are not allowed to make a case that is at variance with their pleadings. Evidence which is at variance with the averments in the pleadings goes to no issue. See Buhari vs. Obasanjo (2005) 2 NWLR (Pt. 910) 241, Makinde vs. Akinwale (2000) 1 SC 89 and Allied bank (Nig) Ltd vs. Akubueze (1997) 6 NWLR (Pt. 509) 374.”
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE -WHETHER ORAL EVIDENCE IS REQUIRED IN SUPPORT OF DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE
“Documents admitted in evidence, no matter how useful they could be, would not be of much assistance to the Court in the absence of admissible oral evidence by persons who can explain their purport. See Alao vs. Akano (2005) 11 NWLR (Pt. 935) 160.”
PLEADINGS- OBJECTS OF PLEADINGS
“The object of pleadings is to compel parties to define accurately and precisely the issues upon which the case between them is to be contested to avoid the element of surprise by either party. It also guides the parties so that no evidence is led outside the facts pleaded as evidence on a fact not pleaded goes to no issue. See Oladunjoye vs. Akinterinwa (2000) 4 SC (Pt. 1) 19 and Oshodi vs. Eyifunmi (2000) 7 SC (Pt. II) 145.”
CASES CITED
None
STATUTES REFERRED TO
Evidence Act|
CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT