CORAM

---

---

PARTIES

---

BALA YAHAYA

---

HARUNA UMARU

---

AREA(S) OF LAW

---

---

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Respondent as Plaintiff instituted an action against the Appellant as Defendant, before the Upper Area Court No. 2 Jalingo for a declaration of title to land lying and situate at Nyaja Puga Yarro Local Government Area of Taraba State. At the close of the trial, the court declared title in favour of the Respondent. The Appellant dissatisfied with the decision of the Upper Area Court appealed to the High Court of Taraba State sitting in its appellate jurisdiction, which dismissed the appeal. The Appellant dissatisfied once again with the decision of the High Court has appealed to this court.

---

HELD

---

Appeal Dismissed.

---

ISSUES

---

Whether the High Court of justice of Taraba State sitting in its appellate jurisdiction was right to have held that the respondent has proven the root of title of his land in dispute through sale to his late father? Whether the High Court of Justice of Taraba State, Jalingo sitting in its Appellate Jurisdiction was right in law to have held that the Upper Area Court No: 2 Jalingo was right to have admitted and acted on EXHIBIT ‘A’ where it was clear from the contents of EXHIBIT ‘A’ that it does not relate to the land in dispute?

---

RATIONES DECIDENDI

---

DECLARATION OF TITLE TO LAND – ON WHOM LIES THE ONUS OF PROOF IN A DECLARATION OF TITLE TO LAND

---

“It is trite that the onus of proof in a declaration of title lies on the plaintiff who succeeds on the strength of his case and not on the weakness of the defendant’s case. See, Kodilinye vs. Odu (Supra), Udegbe vs. Nwokafor (1963) 1 SCNLR 184, Woluchem vs. Gudi (1981) SC 291, Piaro vs. Tenalo (1976) 12 SC 31.”

---

TITLE TO LAND – WAYS OF ESTABLISHING TITLE TO LAND

---

“It is also trite that there are five ways in which title could be established as laid down in the case of Idundun vs. Okumagba (1976) 9 – 10 SC 223. These are as follows:
By traditional history or evidence.
By production of documents of title.
By proving acts of ownership (such as selling, leasing, renting out or farming on all or part of the land) extending over a sufficient length of time, or which are numerous and positive enough as to warrant the interference that the person is the true owner.
By proving acts of long possession and enjoyment of the land.
By proof of possession of connected or adjacent land in circumstances rendering it probable that the claimant is also owner of the land in dispute.
Proof of one of the ways is sufficient. See, also Arije vs. Arije & Ors (2018) LPELR – 44193 (SC) P.34, PARAS. B-G, Nkado vs. Obiano (1997) 5 SC NJ 33 at 47; Owhonda vs. Epechi (2003) 9 – 11 SCN 1 at 6 and Iliya & Anor vs. Lamu & Anor (2019) LPELR – 47048 (CA) PP. 19 – 20, PARAS. D – B.”

---

TENDERING OF EXHIBIT – CONSEQUENCES WHERE A COUNSEL FAILS TO CHALLENGE AN EXHIBIT WHEN SAME IS TENDERED IN EVIDENCE

---

“The law is that where a counsel stands by and allows an Exhibit to be tendered and it becomes evidence, without any objection, he cannot be heard later to complain about same. The Exhibit becomes legally admitted evidence which the court can rely on. The trial court rightly relied on Exhibit ‘A’. See, Bello Shorumo vs. The State (2010) 12 SC NJ 109, Oseni vs. The State (2012) 2 SCNJ 215 at 253 and Adeleke vs. The State (Supra), Ipinlaiye vs. Olutokun (1996) LPELR – 1532 (SC) PP. 19 – 21, PARAS. B – F, Lawal vs. State (1966) LPELR – 25333 (SC) PP. 6 – 8, PARAS. D-A and Musa vs. State (2019) LPELR – 46350 (SC) PP. 10 – 12, PARAS. C-A.”

---

UNREGISTERED REGISTRABLE LAND INSTRUMENT – WHETHER AN UNREGISTERED REGISTRABLE LAND INSTRUMENT IS ADMISSIBLE IN EVIDENCE

---

“The position of the law is that an unregistered registrable land instrument is admissible in evidence to prove payment and receipt of the purchase price but, also the equitable interest of the purchase in the land in question. Further, an unregistered instrument is admissible in evidence to prove the payment of money as well as possession. See, Benjamin vs. Kalio (Supra), Aomo Limited vs. Martins (2017) LPELR – 43504 (CA) and Atanda vs. Hon. Commissioner For Lands & Housing, Kwara State & Anor (2017) LPELR – 42346 (SC).”

---

CASES CITED

---

Not Available

---

STATUTES REFERRED TO

---

Not Available|

---

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT

---