Legalpedia Citation: (2023-03) Legalpedia 73470 (CA)

In the Court of Appeal

Holden at Gombe

Wed Mar 29, 2023

Suit Number: CA/G/83/2022

CORAM

ALI ABUBAKAR BABANDI GUMEL JUSTICE COURT OF APPEAL

EBIOWEI TOBI JUSTICE COURT OF APPEAL

ADEBUKUNOLA IBIRONKE BANJOKO JUSTICE COURT OF APPEAL

PARTIES

SILAS BADO

APPELLANTS

1. MELA ABBA
2. YABUKU SAM
3. YILA PHILIP

RESPONDENTS

AREA(S) OF LAW

 APPEAL, LAND LAW, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

SUMMARY OF FACTS

At the trial Court, Gombe State High Court, the plaintiff (Respondent in this case) claimed that the land in dispute was inherited by them through their grandfather, Talure who cleared the land while the Defendant (Appellant) counter-claimed. The court agreed with the plaintiff and granted the reliefs.

Unhappy with the decision, the Appellant filed a Notice of Appeal challenging the decision hence the instant matter.

HELD

Appeal allowed

ISSUES

Ø  Whether the Respondent as Plaintiff proved his case and the Appellant as Defendant proved his counter-claim in the light of the evidence by both parties.

RATIONES DECIDENDI

TITLE TO LAND – FIVE WAYS OF PROVING TITLE TO LAND

At the lower Court both parties has a claim against each other and both are relying on traditional history as root of title whether it is called inheritance or by any other name. There are five ways of proving title of land as established in the locus classicus of Idundun vs Okumagba (1976) 10 S.C. 227 and one of such ways is traditional history. The law is that the five ways are independent of each other as a party is not under obligation to prove all the title, once he can prove any one of the ways, title can be given to him. See Thompson & Anor vs Arowolo (2003) 4 S.C. (pt II) 108; Owhonda vs Ekpechi (2003) LPELR-2844(SC); Oyadare vs Keji & Anor (2005) 1 S.C. (pt 1) 19. The five ways of proving title has stated in a line of cases as stated in Idundun vs Okumagba (supra) are reconfirmed in a host of cases including Thompson & Anor vs Arowolo (2003) 4 SC (pt II) 108, where the apex Court listed the five ways in these words:

“It has long been established by the Supreme Court on the celebrated case of D. O. Idundun & Ors v. Daniel Okumagba & Ors (1976) 9-10 SC 227 at Pp. 246-250 that there are five ways of proving title to land. These are:

1. By traditional evidence (Adedibu v. Adewoyin 13 WACA 191);

2. By production of a document of grant or title Johnson v. Lawanson (1971) 1 ALL NLR 56;

3. By proving acts of possession and ownership extending over a sufficient length of time and are numerous and positive enough to warrant the inference that the plaintiff is an exclusive owner Ekpo v. Ita (1932) 11 NLR 68;

4. By proving acts of long possession and enjoyment of the land; but this only raises a presumption of ownership Da Costa v. Ikomi (1968) 1 ALL NLR 394 at p.398;

5. By proof of possession of connected or adjacent land in circumstances which make it probable that the owner of such adjacent or connected land is probably the owner of the land in dispute. Okechukwu v. Okafor (1961) 1 All NLR 685.

It is now well settled that each of the five ways of proving title to land enunciated above (THOMPSON & ANOR V. AROWOLO) is independent of the other. See Ogbuokwelu v. Umeanafunkwa (1994) 4 NWLR (Pt. 341) 676 at 692; Nwosu v. Udeaja (1990) 1 NWLR (Pt. 125) 188 at 218.” – Per Ebiowei Tobi, JCA

TRADITIONAL HISTORY – REQUIREMENTS FOR PROVING TITLE BY TRADITONAL HISTORY

Clearly, traditional history is one of the ways of proving title. However, to satisfy this way of proving title, there are certain requirements which the party relying on same must plead and prove. A person relying on traditional history must start from the beginning of the land not in relation to creation, but rather in relation to who first discovered the land. The pleadings and evidence must be clear on three basic things, that is, the person or persons who founded the land, how it was founded by him or them and the name of successive owners of the land in an unbroken chain like a relay baton from the founder to the present person or persons claiming title over it. Anyafulu & Ors vs Meka & Ors (2014) LPELR-22336(SC); Iseogbekun vs Adelakun (2013) 1 NWLR (pt 1337) 140; Wachukwu & Anor vs Owunwanne & Anor (2011) 5 S.C (pt 1)168. Let us take a little excursion into the law as to how a party can prove title by traditional evidence or traditional history. The party relying on same must produce by way of evidence, the family tree or genealogy of the family from the founder to the person claiming title. A mere family tree or genealogy tracing will not be enough but the evidence must relate the ownership of the land passing from one person to the other upto the Appellant. In Awodi & Anor vs. Ajagbe (2014) 12 SC (Pt. 1) 76, the apex Court in driving home this point held as follows:

“… the law is now settled that where a person relies on traditional history as his root of title to land, the onus is on him to plead the root of title and the names and history of his ancestors. He should lead evidence to show same without leaving any yawning gap.

A Court has no jurisdiction to supply any missing link in a genealogical tree from progenitors to a claimant. See Mogaji v. Cadbury (1986) 2 NWLR (Pt. 47) 393; Anyanwu v. Mbara (1992) 5 NWLR (Pt. 242) 386; Akinloye v. Eyiyola (1968) 2 NMLR 92; Owoade v. Omitola (1988) 2 NWLR (Pt. 77) 413 and Odi v. Iyala (2004) 4 SCNJ 35 at 54. – Per Ebiowei Tobi, JCA

CASES CITED

STATUTES REFERRED TO

1. Nil

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT