BULAMA MARI VS MOHAMMED NASIRU (MALLAM KOLO) - Legalpedia | The Complete Lawyer - Research | Productivity | Health

BULAMA MARI VS MOHAMMED NASIRU (MALLAM KOLO)

AHMADU ZUBARU VS HYELDUWA KANO
September 23, 2021
What are You Selling? Clients Buy Transformation Not Legal Services
September 29, 2021
Show all

BULAMA MARI VS MOHAMMED NASIRU (MALLAM KOLO)

BULAMA MARI VS MOHAMMED NASIRU (MALLAM KOLO)

BULAMA 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.

||INTERESTED IN GETTING SUMMARIES LIKE THIS FOR FREE?||

||Click Here||

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.|

||INTERESTED IN GETTING SUMMARIES LIKE THIS FOR FREE?||

||Click Here||

>