CORAM

---

1. HON. A. A. B. GUMEL….…..JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL

2. HON. U. A. OGAKWU……….JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL

3. HON. M. DANJUMA.….…….JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL

---

PARTIES

---

1. AUDU MAISAMARI

2. ISAH GATAL

3. FOLOKUMA TITA

APPELLANTS

---

SABULU GIWA

RESPONDENTS

---

AREA(S) OF LAW

---

APPEAL, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, CUSTOMARY LAW, EVIDENCE, LAND LAW, LIMITATION LAWS, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

 

 

---

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Respondent as Plaintiff before the trial Upper Area Court, Bambam, claimed for declaration of title to portions of land which he allegedly purchased in 1979 from one Yolibwa, and has been in possession for fourty (40) years until sometime in 2019 when the Appellants, then Defendants at the trial court, began to lay claim over the land in dispute to being a communal land.

The Respondent as Plaintiff before the trial court presented 3 witnesses, while the Appellants as Defendants presented seven (7) witnesses, all of who confirmed that there was a sale of land to the Respondent by the said Yolibwa, only disputing the year of the sale and the lack of authority by the Respondent’s vendor to carry out the sale.

At the conclusion of the hearing, judgment was entered in favour of the Respondent as Plaintiff. The Appellants being dissatisfied with the decision of the trial Upper Area Court, Bambam, appealed to the Gombe State High court of Justice sitting on appeals which court confirmed the judgment of the trial Court, hence the instant appeal to this court.

The Respondent also filed a Notice of Preliminary Objection contending that the appeal is incompetent thereby depriving this court of the jurisdiction to entertain it.

 

---

HELD

---

Appeal dismissed

 

---

ISSUES

---

1. Whether this appeal is not incompetent thereby depriving this Honourable Court of the jurisdiction to determine same? (Preliminary Objection)

2. Whether considering the communal land holding of the land in dispute and particularly the evidence of Audu Maisamari, the 7th defence witness, the purported sale of the farmland to the respondent is not, ab-initio, void?

3. Whether the lower court was wrong in law to have applied the limitation law in this matter that had to do with customary land holding?

4. Whether or not the lower court was right in holding that the trial court properly evaluated the evidence when the respondent failed to prove the root of his title and that of his vendor?

 

 

 

---

RATIONES DECIDENDI

---

SALE OF LAND – REQUIREMENTS FOR A VALID SALE OF LAND UNDER NATIVE OR CUSTOMARY LAW

---

Furthermore, in the case of ATANDA V. COMMISSIONER OF LANDS AND HOUSING, KWARA STATE (2017) LPELR-4236 (SC), it was held as follows:

“It is trite law that for a sale of land under native or customary law to be valid, the following requirements must be met. These requirements are: (1) There must be payment of money or agreed consideration. (2) The transaction must be witnessed by witnesses. (3) The actual handing over of the land must be done in the presence of the same witnesses. See Adedeji V. Oloso (2007) SCNJ 411; Folarin V. Durojaiye (1988) 1 NWLR (Pt. 70) 351; Cole V. Folami (1956) 1 FSC 66 at 69. In fact in Adedeji V. Oloso (Supra), this court at page 416 had this to say per Oguntade JSC: “The trial Court was clearly wrong in granting to 2nd Defendant a reprieve for the consequences at law attending upon his failure to plead and testify as to the name of persons who witnesses the sale transaction and the handling of the land. Even if such witnesses were dead and could not be called as witnesses, the obligation to plead their names and testify concerning them was not removed. It was the particularity with which their names and description were pleaded and given in evidence that would assist the court in determining whether the evidence was credible. It seems to me that in the circumstances, the inevitable conclusion to be arrived at is that the 2nd defendant failed to prove that the land was sold to his father under customary law” Per AMIRU SANUSI, JSC (PP. 18-20 Paras. F-A).

See also YUSUF OGUNLANA (2021) LPELR-54522 (CA). – Per MOHAMMED DANJUMA, JCA

 

---

APPEAL – CONDUCT OF A PARTY ON APPEAL

---

The law is trite that a party cannot bring on an appeal a case different from what was presented at the trial or lower court. See the case of IRONBAR V. OKON & ANOR (2022) LPELR-58726 (CA). – Per MOHAMMED DANJUMA, JCA

 

---

LIMITATION LAW – THE PURPOSES OF LIMITATION LAWS

---

The overriding purpose of limitation laws is expressed in the Latin phrase “interest rei publicae ut sit finis litium” that is, litigation shall be automatically stifled after a fixed length of time, irrespective of the merits of a particular case. Another purpose is the desirability of preventing claimants from prosecuting stale demands on one hand, and the desirability of protecting Defendants from disturbance after a long lapse of time when they have grown accustomed to the position or lost the evidence to defend it, on the other hand. See the case of BEDKO (NIG) LTD V. AMCON & ORS (2022) LPELR-57131 (CA). – Per MOHAMMED DANJUMA, JCA

 

---

APPEAL – CONDUCT OF COURTS IN DETERMINING WHAT CONSTITUTES GROUNDS OF APPEAL

---

Of course, appeals are heard on the grounds and issues distilled by the Appellants. Now, a panoramic overview of the holding of the lower court will reveal that all the issues raised by the Appellants as adopted by the Respondent particularly the issue that pertains the validity of the sale of the land in dispute. Having resolved the validity or otherwise of the sale in favour of the Respondent, the issue of Limitation Law automatically becomes otiose and of no moment. This is to say it was not in any way necessary for the resolution of the issues for determination before the court. The law is trite that statements made by courts that do not form part of the main issue for determination before the court cannot be a ground of appeal as it is the case in the instant appeal. See the case of NGIGE V. OBI & ORS (2006) LPELR-12920 (CA). – Per MOHAMMED DANJUMA, JCA

 

---

EVIDENCE – THE COURT WITH THE PRIMARY DUTY OF EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE

---

It is trite law that the evaluation of evidence and ascription of probative value is the sole responsibility or primary function of the trial court and where evidence is so properly evaluated, there is no need for an appellate court to embark on the exercise of re-evaluation. See the case of UTC (NIG) PLC V. PETERS (SUPRA). – Per MOHAMMED DANJUMA, JCA

 

---

TITLE TO LAND – CONDUCT OF COURTS WHERE A PARTY HAS SATISFIED THE COURT AS TO HIS TITLE TO LAND

---

It is trite that where a party has satisfied the court as to his title to the land in dispute, the court need not inquire into the title of his predecessor. The party needs not prove the title of his vendor except where the title has become an issue. See the case of AIYEOLA V. PEDRO (SUPRA). – Per MOHAMMED DANJUMA, JCA

 

---

CASES CITED

---

---

STATUTES REFERRED TO

---

1. Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended)

2. Bauchi State Limitation Law (Applicable in Gombe State)

3. High Court Rules applicable to Gombe State

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGEMENT