CORAM
PARTIES
ALHAJI YAYA ABUBAKAR
MALLAM ABDUL – HADI DAHIRU
AREA(S) OF LAW
Not Availale
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The Appellant brought an action over a piece of land situates and lying at Jimeta (Sangere) Jimeta-Numan Road, Yola Adamawa State, measuring 1.000 hectares before the Adamawa State High Court against the Respondent; wherein he claimed for a declaration that the Appellant is the lawful and Bonafide holder of Right of Occupancy No. GS/8085 registered as No. 8329 at page 8329 Volume 64 at the Land Registry Yola; an order of perpetual injunction; general damages for trespass; and cost of litigation. The Appellant’s claim is that sometime on 1st March, 1989, one Mohammed Bosai Hairu (deceased) was allocated the land in dispute by the then Gongola State Government, that the deceased Mohammed Bosai Hairu exercised numerous acts of possession and ownership of the land without any hindrance until the Appellant indicated interest over the said land. Upon the grant of consent by the Governor of Adamawa State, the deceased Mohammed Bosai Hairu assigned all his rights and interest over the said land to the Appellant in consideration of the sum of N250,000.00, the said assignment was registered as No. 8329 at page 8329 Vol. 64, at the Land Registry Office Yola on the 23rd February 2012 and he exercised acts of possession and ownership over the said land without any hindrance until the Appellant noticed that the Respondent had authorized the encroachment and activities on the land. At the conclusion of the trial, the trial court dismissed the Appellant’s claim hence, an appeal to this court.
HELD
Appeal Dismissed
ISSUES
Whether Exhibit ‘B’ is a Public document that requires certification in accordance with the provisions of Section 104 of the Evidence Act, 2011. Whether from the facts of this case and the totality of evidence adduced before the trial court (oral and documentary) the Appellant has proved his claim on the preponderance of evidence.
RATIONES DECIDENDI
CERTIFICATION OF PUBLIC DOCUMENT – EFFECT OF FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENT OF CERTIFICATION OF A PUBLIC DOCUMENT
“It is apt at this point to reproduce Section 104 of the Evidence Act, 2011 for ease of reference.
104 “(1) Every public officer having the custody of a public document which any person has a right to inspect shall give that person on demand a copy of it on payment of the legal fees prescribed in that respect, together with a certificate written at the foot of such copy that it is a true copy of such document or part of it as the case may be.
2. The certificate mentioned in subsection (1) of this Section shall be dated and subscribed by such officer with his name and his official title and shall be sealed, whenever such officer is authorized by law to make use of a seal, and such copies so certified shall be called certified copies.”
On the face of Exhibit ‘B’, there is nothing to show that the required legal fee had been paid in form of the endorsement of payment or receipt number by the plaintiff. The name of the officer that endorsed or certified the said Exhibit is not on it, in compliance with Section 104 of the Evidence Act. Exhibit ‘B’ was tendered as a Certified True Copy of the Deed of Assignment; therefore, it ought to have complied with the requirements by law for the court to have utilized same.
Further, Exhibit ‘B’ which was heavily relied upon by the Appellant is undated. A document can only be termed a certified true copy of a public document if the payment of the legal fee has been done, with a certification written at the foot of such copy that it is a true copy of the original, it must be dated and subscribed by an officer with his name and official title. Exhibit ‘B’ having failed to comply with the requirements cannot qualify as a certified true copy of the Deed of Assignment; a public document. See, Ndayako Vs. Mohammed (2006) 17 NWLR (PT. 1009) 676, Onusore Vs. Aregbesola & Ors & Ors (2018) 15 NWLR (PT. 1482) 205 and Ntufam (Hon.) Polycarp Effiom & Anor Vs. Hon. Charles O. Ekpe & Ors (2019) LPELR – 48976 (CA). I hold that Exhibit ‘B’ is not a certified document. An uncertified and undated public document is worthless. See, G.S. & D. Industry Ltd Vs. N.D.F.D.A. (2012) 5 NWLR (PT. 1594) 511 at 536. No doubt, certified copies of a public document are deemed to be originals, where there is no certification the presumption of regularity will not be ascribed to it, it ought to be certified for the court to accept its authenticity and utilize same. Before a public document can be tendered, accepted and utilized by the court it must be certified.-
CERTIFICATION OF PUBLIC DOCUMENT –WHEN IS A PUBLIC DOCUMENT SAID TO HAVE BEEN CERTIFIED
“A public document is said to be certified if:
It was paid for.
There is an endorsement/certificate that it is a true copy of the document in question.
The endorsement/certificate must be dated and signed by the officer responsible for certification, with his name and official title.
The certified copies of documents are as good as originals where the above conditions are met; otherwise the document is worthless even where tendered, as in the present case. The trial court was right to have held that Exhibit ‘B’ needed certification in accordance with Section 104 of the Evidence Act. See, Tabik Investment Limited & Anor Vs. Guaranty Trust Bank (PLC) (2011) LPELR – 3131 (SC). –
DECLARATORY RELIEFS – DUTY OF A PARTY SEEKING DECLARATORY RELIEFS
“It is on record that the Appellant testified that Exhibit ‘B’ was made in 2012, while on the face of it, it was made in 2009. There was clear discrepancy as to when Exhibit “B” was made. I agree with the submissions of the learned counsel to the Respondent that the Appellant who sought declaratory reliefs had the duty to adduce credible and cogent evidence to justify the grant of the reliefs sought in line with the Appellant’s pleadings. Declaratory reliefs are not granted as a matter of course. See, C.O.P. Taraba State & Anor Vs. Alh. Mohammed Dabo & Anor (2019) LPELR – 47215 (CA) P. 21; Paras. B – D, Chukwumah Vs. Shell Petroleum (Nig) Ltd (1993) LPELR – 864 (SC) PP. 64 – 65, Paras. G – B, Ladoja VS. INEC (2007) LPELR – 1738 (SC) PP. 60 – 61, Paras. B – F. Further, the Appellant did not call his grantors, the Ministry of Land and Survey to testify as to how he acquired his title which is fatal to his case. The appellant ought to have adduced or called evidence to prove his alleged vendor’s root of title or how his grantors acquired the land in dispute. See, Ngene Vs. Igbo & Anor (2000) LPELR – 1987 (SC) PP. 31 – 32, F – B, Ibenye & Ors Vs. Agwu & Anor (1998) LPELR – 1393 (SC) P. 51, Paras. B – C, Anukam Vs. Anukam (2008) LPELR – 500 (SC) P. 20, PARAS. E – F, Ogbaji Vs. Utahile & Ors (2019) LPELR – 47186 (CA) PP. 20 – 22, PARAS. F – B, Ogunleye Vs. Oni (1990) 4 S.C. 130, (1990) LPELR – 2342 – 2342 (SC), Osafile Vs. Odi (1994) LPELR – 2784 (SC) and Alhaji Musa Abdullahi Vs. Mal. Yusuf Nuhu (2013) LPELR – 22625 (CA) PP. 34 – 36, PARAS. C – E.-
CASES CITED
Not Available
STATUTES REFERRED TO
Not Available|