AHMADU ZUBARU VS HYELDUWA KANO
September 23, 2021What are You Selling? Clients Buy Transformation Not Legal Services
September 29, 2021BULAMA MARI VS MOHAMMED NASIRU (MALLAM KOLO)
(2021) Legalpedia (CA) 41144
In the Court of Appeal
HOLDEN AT GOMBE
Sunday, May 30, 2021
Suite Number: CA/G/294/2019
CORAM
JUMMAI HANNATU SANKEY
TUNDE O AWOTOYE
EBIOWEI TOBI
BULAMA MARI || MOHAMMED NASIRU (MALLAM KOLO)
AREA(S) OF LAW
APPEAL
Land Law
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The Claimant/Respondent instituted an action against the Defendant/Appellant at the High Court of Justice Borno State wherein he sought a declaration that he is the rightful owner of the land situate at Kululuri Maisandari Ward, Damboa road, Maiduguri covered by Certificate of Occupancy no 008373 with reference No. MMC/LAND/726 registered as 8(2)(a) II Vol. III.; perpetual injunction restraining the Defendant, his agents privies, assignees, heirs and servants or any other person from interfering with the peaceful possession and ownership of the disputed land and general damages. The Defendant filed a counter claim seeking a declaration that he is the rightful owner of part of the land in dispute and perpetual injunction. The trial court after hearing parties, entered judgment in favour of the Claimant/Respondent granting the reliefs sought except for general damages, for failure to led evidence in proof of the damages suffered from the acts of the Defendant. Dissatisfied with the trial court’s judgment, the Appellant has filed this appeal. The Respondent filed a Respondent notice on grounds that the trial judge ought to have considered the issue of estoppel by conduct of the Appellant and ought to have entered judgment in favour of the Respondent based on the equitable doctrine of laches and acquiesces.
HELD
Appeal Dismissed
ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION
Whether there was a sale of land transaction between the appellant and the respondent with respect to the land in dispute Whether the trial judge was right in dismissing the appellant’s counter claim
RATIONES
BURDEN OF PROOF – ON WHOM LIES THE BURDEN OF PROVING AN ASSERTION
“The burden of proving such assertions lies on each of the party making the said assertion See Sections 131(2) , 136 (1) and 138(1) of the Evidence Act 2011. See Akinbade & Anor Vs Babatunde & Ors (2018) 7NWLR PT 1618 P. 366”.
STATUTES REFERRED TO
Evidence Act 2011|
COUNSEL
-M. UMARU ESQ, U. A. CHIROMA, ESQ. FOR THE RESPONDENT|-MALAM AUDU MUSA ESQ. S. S. ALIYU ESQ. H. WAZIRI ESQ S. SHETTIMA, ESQ . S. M. KACHALLAH ESQ. B. G. ZANNA ESQ. M. MAKINTA, ESQ. D. T. UMARA, ESQ. FOR THE RESPONDENT.|
