HAYATOU ZAPHANIAH V ALLEN GARBA & ANOR
April 3, 2025SHUAIBU MUSA & ANOR V. SUILEMAN YAHAYA & ORS
April 3, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (2019) Legalpedia (CA) 11072
In the Court of Appeal
HOLDEN AT YOLA
Sun Dec 8, 2019
Suit Number: CA/YL/71/2019
CORAM
PARTIES
BULUS HAMMAN APPELLANTS
AMINU UMAR BABA RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The Plaintiff/Respondent at the Adamawa State High Court claimed against the Defendant/Appellant a declaration of title to the piece of land known as Plot number 17 AB Road Rugange on G.S.Y.P. 18 and covered by a grant of a right of occupancy Reference No. GS/M&L&S/LAN 14240 and GS/2939 dated 6th May, 1981, and a declaration that the entry upon and development of the said piece of land by the Defendant is illegal and constitute trespass. The Plaintiff/Respondent sought orders of the court directing the Defendants to vacate and deliver vacant possession of the land to the Plaintiff within one month of the delivery of judgment; directing the Defendant to pay to the Plaintiff the sum of Five Hundred Thousand Naira only (500,000) as general damages for trespass. The trial court granted the claims of the Plaintiff/Respondent, after hearing the parties before it. Dissatisfied with the decision of the trial Court, the Defendant/Appellant have appealed to the Court of Appeal.
HELD
Appeal Allowed in part
ISSUES
Whether the reliefs claimed by the Respondent for which the lower Court entered judgment in his favour are not grantable and as such incompetent. Ground 1. Whether on the balance of probabilities and the preponderance of evidence the decision is not unreasonable, unwarranted and cannot be supported or is against the weight of evidence. Grounds 6, 7 and 8. Whether the Respondent established the identity of the land for which he claimed to entitle him to the judgment delivered in his favour. Ground 9. Whether the Respondent did not abandon the reliefs claimed by him as contained in his statement of claim when he testified adopting his Written Statement on oath. Ground 3. Whether the Lower Court did not abdicate its duty and thereby denied the Appellant fair hearing when it failed to resolve the issues formulated by the Appellant for the determination of the case. Grounds 2, 4, 8
RATIONES DECIDENDI
“OWNERSHIP”- DEFINITION OF “OWNERSHIP”
“Ownership is defined by the Supreme Court in Fagunwa & Anor v Adibi & Ors. (2004) LPELR-1229 (SC) 22 thus:
“Ownership generally connotes the totality of the rights of the owner over and above every other person on a thing. It connotes a complete and total right over property. The property begins with the owner and also ends with him. Unless he transfers his ownership of the property to a third party, he remains the allodia owner.”
It follows therefore that the holder of the Certificate of Occupancy (the Respondent) is the owner in exclusive possession of the land.”
TITLE TO LAND- ON WHO LIES THE BURDEN OF PROOF IN AN ACTION FOR TITLE TO LAND?
“It is important to note that in all cases relating to declaration of title to land, the burden of proof lies on the party claiming title to prove his case by credible evidence in line with his pleadings; his case will collapse if he fails to discharge that duty. The burden of proof shall be discharged on the balance of probabilities in civil proceedings. See Mojeed v Adegoke (2007) 4 SCNJ 77 Ratio 3 and Kazeem v Mosaku (2007) 2 SCNJ 135 Ratio 1. Even if the Appellant in the instant case admitted liability before the lower Court, the Respondent cannot rely on such admission of liability to obtain judgment. He must prove his claim of title to the disputed land – Ayanru v Mandilas (2007) 4 SCNJ 388 Ratio 1.”
DECLARATION OF TITLE TO LAND – DUTY OF A CLAIMANT IN AN ACTION FOR DECLARATION OF TITLE TO LAND
“In Ukaegbu v Onwuboro (2014) LPELR-24429 (CA) this Court Held that:-
“Suffice it to say that the authorities are all settled that for a Plaintiff to be granted a declaration of title to land his first duty is to prove with definitive certainty, exactitude and precision the area to which his claim relates so that the Court would be able to tie the declaration to the area so identified and proved. Where he fails on this first hurdle, then no further question need arise as his case will stand dismissed. See Per Ogbuagu, JSC, in Ukaegbu V. Nwololo (2009) 169 LRCN 210 at 246 paragraphs Z – JJ to 247 paragraphs A – JJ; who cited Iyaji V. Eyigebe (1987) 7 S.C.N.J. 148 Per Oputa, JSC, Baruwa V. Ogunsola (1938) 4 WACA 159; Udofia & Anor. V. Afia & Ors. (1940) 6 WACA 216, Udekwe Amata V. Modekwe (1954) 14 WACA 580 and Salami & 3 Ors. V. Oke (1987) 4 NWLR (Pt. 63) 162 Per Oputa, JSC; who held that:”if a Plaintiff did not properly and satisfactorily describe the land in dispute, and if the description contradicts the Plan, he fails in the declaration of title he seeks. The law is that the Plaintiff cannot be granted a declaration of title if he fails to prove the identity of land with certainty and precision. See Onwuka V. Ediala (1989) 1 NWLR (Pt.96) 182; Babatola V. Aladejana (2001) 88 LRCN 2293 at 2302 – 2303. The same principle applies to the entire land in dispute or part thereof. The Plaintiff has to succeed on the strength of his case and not on the weakness of the defence. It is settled law that the first duty of a claimant of title to land is to show clearly the area of land which his claim relates, the exact boundaries, its extent etc. The above requirement is not satisfied by merely tendering the Survey Plan of the land in dispute without adducing oral evidence as to the features on the land, the boundaries and the boundary neighbors etc, particularly where the defence denies the identity of the land in dispute, as in the instant case.”
CONTRADICTION IN EVIDENCE- EFFECT OF CONTRADICTIONS IN THE EVIDENCE OF A PLAINTIFF ON MATERIAL POINTS
“The law is settled that contradictions in the evidence of Plaintiff’s case on material points destroy his case, as the evidence would be held to be unreliable. See the case of Isa v Sule (2012) All FWLR (Pt. 644) 127 Ratio 5.”
CASE OF A PARTY – DUTY ON A PARTY TO BE CONSISTENT IN PROVING HIS CASE
“A party should be consistent in stating his case and in proving it. Justice is more than a game of hide and seek. It will never decree anything in favour of so slippery a party so playing such game of hide and seek.”
DECLARATION OF TITLE TO LAND – DUTY OF A PARTY CLAIMING DECLARATION OF TITLE TO LAND
“A party who claims declaration of title to land is required to establish clearly the area of land to which his claim relates. In other words he has to establish the identity of the land in dispute. This is his first duty. If the land cannot be properly ascertained, the plaintiff’s claim must fail. See Auta v Ibe (2003) 3 NWLR (Pt. 837) 247, 265 at 266 and Kwadzo v. Adjei (1944) WACA 274. The plaintiff however will not be required to prove the identity of the land that he claims where the defendant does not dispute same in his statement of defence. In Ezeudu v. Obiagwu (1986) 2 NWLR (Part 21) 208 the Supreme Court held that:
“The identity of land in dispute will be in issue if and only if the defendants in their statement of defence made it one by disputing specifically either the area or the size or the location or the features shown on the plaintiff’s plan.”
IDENTITY OF LAND- WAYS OF ESTABLISHING THE IDENTITY OF A LAND IN DISPUTE
“Identity of a parcel of land in dispute may be established by: a) the claimant giving oral description of the land sufficient to make it ascertainable; b) filing a detailed and accurate Survey Plan showing the various features on such land sufficient to point to the clear boundaries thereof. In the former case, the test is whether a surveyor reading the proceedings can produce an accurate survey plan of the said land. See Barawa v. Ogunsola (1938) 4 WACA 159, Ezekwu v. Ukachukwu (2004) 17 NWLR (Pt. 902) 227.”
DECLARATION OF TITLE TO LAND – DUTY OF A PLAINTIFF CLAIMING TITLE TO LAND TO IDENTIFY THE SPECIFIC LAND IN DISPUTE
“In Ezeudu v. Obiagwu (Supra) it was held that:
“Where there is any doubt or any question as to the identity of the land in dispute in an action for declaration of title, a Plaintiff cannot succeed unless he can prove clearly the specific area in dispute, that is the boundaries of the land which he claims.”
PLEADINGS- PLEADINGS DO NOT CONSTITUTE EVIDENCE
“Pleadings are statements of facts and do not constitute evidence. Whatever is not contained in the written statement on oath, even if contained in the statement of claim goes to no issue.”
PLEADINGS – EFFECT OF FAILURE BY A PARTY TO LEAD EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THE AVERMENTS IN HIS PLEADINGS
“In the case of Help Ltd. v. Silver Anchor Ltd (Supra) it was held that:
“Pleadings in themselves cannot constitute evidence. Mere averment without evidence in proof of the facts pleaded is no proof of the facts averred therein when they are not admitted. See Kalio v. Woluchem (1985) 1 NWLR (Pt. 4) 610, and Adegbite v. Ogunfaolu (1990) 4 NWLR (Pt. 146) 578 at 590. If a party to an action fails to or does not lead evidence in support of the averments in his pleading, the averments would be taken as having been abandoned.”
COURT- DUTY OF THE COURT TO CONSIDER ALL ISSUES RAISED BEFORE IT.
“It is the duty of a court whether of first instance or Appellate to consider all the issues that have been joined by the parties and raised before it for determination. If the court failed to do so without a valid reason, then it has failed in its duty; for in our judicial system, it is a fundamental principle of administration of justice that every court has a duty to hear, determine and resolve such questions.”
COURT – EFFECT OF A COURT’S FAILURE TO CONSIDER ALL ISSUES BEFORE IT.
“In Edem v. Canon Balls (Supra) it was held that if a Court failed to consider all the issues that have been joined by the parties without a valid reason, then it has failed in its duty.”
CASES CITED
STATUTES REFERRED TO
CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT
