DAVID UCHE IDEH v. THE STATE
April 5, 2025PAUL MBODAN.V. SILAS.N. DABAI
April 5, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (2019) Legalpedia (CA) 21116
In the Court of Appeal
HOLDEN AT YOLA
Wed Feb 20, 2019
Suit Number: CA/YL/115/2018
CORAM
A. A. OKEKE FEDERAL HIGH COURT
ADAMU HOBON FHC
A A. OKEKE FEDERAL HIGH COURT
A.A. OKEKE FEDERAL HIGH COURT
PARTIES
AUGUSTINE KANE DANWESANTI KANE DANWEKUGWA KANE DANWEMAZAN KANE DANWETIPPI KANE DANWETARI VALANGMAJO SANIELI TULLA APPELLANTS
ALHAJI HAMMAN ADAMA TUKUR RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The facts of this case are that the Defendant/Appellant alleged that he is the owner of the parcel of land measuring 92.14 hectares which is situate at Garin Abbajo Ardo Kola Local Government of Taraba State covered by Taraba State which was given to him by his father who inherited it from his father and had absolute ownership for twenty five years. Subsequently, the Defendant/Appellant negotiated and purchased two other piece of land adjoining the land given to him by his father and merged the three together as one. Before the purchase of these other 2 (two) and merger of same, upon application, the Appellant was issued with a Customary Certificate of Occupancy by Jalingo Local Government and a letter of grant of a right of occupancy was also issued by the Taraba State Government in respect of the land given to him by his father. The Defendant/Appellant alleged that sometimes in the year 2004, the Plaintiff/Respondent forcefully trespassed into the said land in dispute. The Plaintiff/Respondent then commenced an action at the High Court of Justice, Taraba State seeking a declaration that he is entitled to the land in question, perpetual injunction restraining the Defendants from further acts of trespass special and general damages. At the close of evidence, the trial court visited the locus in quo to see things for itself. The visit arose as a result of the Defendant/Appellant alleging that the Plaintiff/Respondent has started planting economic trees on the said land in dispute. Judgment was then delivered and the court granted the claims of the Plaintiff/Respondent. Dissatisfied with the decision of the trial court, the Defendants/Appellants filed two notices of appeal one of which was subsequently struck out. The Appellant contended that the trial court erred in law when it awarded the sum of N1, 500, 00.00k (One Million, Five Hundred Thousand Naira) only as general damages against the Appellants amongst others.
HELD
Appeal succeed in part
ISSUES
Whether the trial court was not wrong in law when it awarded the sum of N1, 500,00.00k (One Million, Five Hundred Thousand Naira) as special damages and the sum of N100,00.00 (One Hundred Thousand Naira) Only as general damages against the Appellants despite its findings that there is no evidence to support the claim of special damages? (Distilled from ground IV and V). Whether the Trial Court was not wrong in law when it declared title of the disputed land to the respondent despite the contradictions with respect to the identity/description of the boundaries of the disputed land? (distilled from ground II) . Whether the trial court was right in law when it declared title of the disputed land to the Respondent when the evidence in support of the alleged gift of the land to the Respondent and the evidence of traditional history relied upon is contradictory (distilled from ground II and VI). Whether the trial court was not wrong in its evaluation of the facts when it preferred the traditional history of the Respondent to that of the Appellants premised on its findings that KANI DANWE the father to the 1st Appellant testified in Exhibit 2 that the disputed land belong to JAURO GANA. (Distilled from ground I)
RATIONES DECIDENDI
AWARD FOR SPECIAL DAMAGES – DUTY OF A PARTY IN A CLAIM FOR SPECIAL DAMAGE
“To succeed for the award of special damages the plaintiff or claimant (in this case the Respondent) must specifically plead same and strictly prove it by credible and ascertainable facts by way of evidence led. See: Anyanwu V. Uzowuaka (2009) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1159)445 (SC).”
PERVERSE FINDING – STATUS OF A PERVERSE FINDING
“A finding is perverse if it is not borne out of the evidence before the court. It is speculative. It is an unreasonable and unacceptable finding because it is wrong and completely outside the evidence before the trial Judge. See Iwupha Vs. Nipost Ltd (2003) 8 NWLR (Pt. 822) 308.”
ESTOPPEL INTER PARTES – NATURE OF ESTOPPEL INTER PARTES
“In Bamishebi V. Faleye (1987) 2 NWLR (Pt. 54) 51 the apex court in reference to the decision in Samuel Fador & Anor Vs. Festus Gbadebo & Anor. (1987) 3 SC 219, 228 held that:
“There is however a second kind of estoppel inter partes and this usually occurs when an issue has earlier been adjudicated upon by a court of competent jurisdiction and the same issue comes incidentally in question in any subsequent proceedings between the same parties (or their privies); in “issue estoppel arises. This is based on the principle of law that a party is not allowed to (i.e he is precluded from) contending the contrary or opposite of any specific point which having been once distinctly put in issue, has with solemnity been determined against him…”
DECLARATION OF TITLE TO LAND – DUTY OF A CLAIMANT IN AN ACTION FOR DECLARATION OF TITLE TO LAND
“Where the claimant seeks for a declaration of title to land, he must lead evidence of such quality to entitle him to the declaration sought. The plaintiff or claimant must succeed on the strength of his own case.”
TITLE TO LAND- FACTORS TO CONSIDER WHEN A CLAIMANT IS PROVING TITLE TO LAND
“The plaintiff or claimant must succeed on the strength of his own case. This principle presupposes 2 (two) factors, namely: –
(i) The plaintiff must prove the identity of the land to which his claim relates failing which his claim must be dismissed.
He must also establish by evidence how he came about the land he identified, as the owner. In otherwords he must prove the root of his title.
IDENTITY OF LAND – DUTY OF A CLAIMANT IN PROVING THE IDENTITY OF A DISPUTED LAND
“In dealing with the first, i.e in relation to the identity of land in question, the plaintiff or claimant must give the description of the land, the location, size, boundary neighbour and if there are features on the land which give it a distinctive outlook, state those features on the land in such a manner that will guide the surveyor in preparing a plan of the said land. See: Atanda Vs. Ajani (1989) 3 SCNJ1, 8; Empemupolo Vs Endremoda (2009) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1442)166 (SC).”
IDENTITY OF LAND – INSTANCE WHEN PROOF OF IDENTITY OF LAND IS NOT NECESSARY
“The duty to prove the identity of land will not arise where the land is known to the two contending parties. This duty on the claimant arises where the adverse party raise it in his defence pleading as an issue. See: Anyawale Vs. Vs. Odusami (supra).”
TRADITIONAL EVIDENCE – WHETHER COURTS CAN RELY ON TRADITIONAL HISTORY IN PROOF OF TITLE TO LAND
“The learned trial Judge in granting title to the plaintiff/respondent was of the view that the traditional history evidence led by the respondent was sufficient and strong enough to command a declaratory order being made in his favour. That might very well be true in relation to the portion of the land given to the respondent by his father so far as his evidence on the founding of the land by the original owner and successive owners down the line to the respondent was not controverted. Such evidence should be accepted and acted upon by the court. See Nwoogu V Ahema (2013) All FWLR (Pt. 693) 1893, 1897.”
OWNERSHIP TO LAND –METHOD OF PROVING OWNERSHIP TO LAND
“One of the five methods by which a claimant can prove ownership to land is by production of documents of title duty authenticated and executed as held in the locus classicus case of Idundun Vs. Okumagba (1976) 9/10 SC 227, 246-250. However the mere production of such documents of title does not automatically guarantee title being declared in favour of the claimant.”
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE – FACTORS THE COURT WOULD CONSIDER WHEN A DOCUMENT IS PRODUCED AS SUFFICIENT PROOF OF OWNERSHIP OF LAND
“Before the production of document of title is admitted as sufficient proof of ownership the court must be satisfied that (a) the document is genuine or valid (b) it has been duty executed stamped and registered (c) the grantor has the authority and capacity to make the grant (d) that the grantor has infact what he takes to grant and (e) that the grant has the effect claimed by the holder of the instrument see: Ayoola Vs. Odofin (1984) 11 SC 120.”
TITLE TO LAND – WHETHER TITLE TO LAND CAN BE GRANTED ON THE BASIS OF RECEIPTS
“There is no evidence led to show that Exhibit 5 and 6 were duly registered and stamped in line with Lands instrument Registration Law as to make same admissible evidence of title. So far as this evidence is lacking on the printed record before us, the declaratory order of title made at the trial court on the 2 (two) pieces of land covered by Exhibits 5 and 6 is wrong and must be set aside. Exhibits 5 and 6 being evidence of receipt of payment only cannot transfer title in land matters. Had the trial court properly looked into this aspect of the case and properly evaluated that evidence, the court should have come to a different conclusion as it did to found in favour of the respondent. Title to land cannot be granted on basis of receipts as in Exhibits 5 and 6.
CASES CITED
None
STATUTES REFERRED TO
Lands instrument Registration Law|
