CAPTAIN DANIEL JAH PAM V. MRS. MARY LUGUJA & ORS

Legalpedia Citation: (2025-02) Legalpedia 71642 (CA)

In the Court of Appeal

Holden at Jos

Tue Feb 11, 2025

Suit Number: CA/J/16/2024

CORAM

Ibrahim Ali Andenyangtso Justice of the Court of Appeal

Peter Oyinkenimiemi Affen Justice of the Court of Appeal

Abiodun Azeem Akinyemi Justice of the Court of Appeal

PARTIES

CAPTAIN DANIEL JAH PAM

APPELLANTS

MRS. MARY LUGUJA
MRS. HANATU TIYATA BUGAMA GUKAR
MR. DASPAK ABEL
MINISTRY OF LANDS, SURVEY AND TOWN PLANNING OF PLATEAU STATE

RESPONDENTS

AREA(S) OF LAW

LAND LAW, REAL PROPERTY, EVIDENCE, TRADITIONAL HISTORY, CUSTOMARY LAW, DECLARATION OF TITLE, PROOF OF OWNERSHIP, CIVIL PROCEDURE, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, JUDGMENT DELIVERY, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE, APPEAL

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The case involves a dispute over land situated along Bukuru-Jos Road, Jos, Plateau State. The original claimant and father of the appellant, DA (DR) VICTOR DUNG PAM, claimed to have bought the land in three different pieces or parcels from different families: PAM GAMBO, DA KATAKO PAM, DA DALYOP ZAMGI all of Gafang Gyel and GYANG JAMANG of Lo Gwon Gyel, who were described as the original owners. After the purchase, he applied to the 4th Respondent (Ministry of Lands, Survey and Town Planning of Plateau State) for a Certificate of Occupancy, which was still being processed when this suit commenced. The appellant claimed that the 1st to 3rd Respondents trespassed on the subject land.

Conversely, each of the Respondents claimed to have purchased their respective parcels in 2001 from other families whom they also referred to as the original/traditional owners. The 1st and 2nd Respondents claimed to have bought theirs from the LOKARANG Family of Zawan, while the 3rd Respondent claimed to have bought his from the LAKAN (or LOKAN family) of Zawan, which is said to be a part of the LOKARANG Family. The titles of the vendors on both sides were based on customary inheritance.

At trial, the appellant called six witnesses, the 1st Respondent called five witnesses, while the 2nd and 3rd Respondents testified for themselves without calling additional witnesses. The 4th Respondent filed a Statement of Defence but called no witnesses and did not file a final address. After trial, a visit to the locus in quo was conducted before the adoption of final addresses. Final addresses were adopted on November 2, 2022, but judgment was delivered on September 29, 2023—more than 10 months later—by the learned trial Chief Judge, who dismissed the appellant’s claims while granting the counterclaims of the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Respondents.

HELD

The appeal was dismissed.

The Court held that although the trial judge’s delay of over 10 months in delivering judgment after the adoption of final addresses was unsavory and an act to be deprecated, it did not occasion any miscarriage of justice to the appellant.

The Court held that the appellant failed to properly plead and prove the traditional history of how his vendors acquired the land, thereby failing to establish his root of title.

The Court held that the appellant failed to properly describe or identify the land in dispute as required by law.

The Court held that the Respondents’ counterclaims were properly proved as they successfully established their root of title through credible traditional evidence that was more probable than that of the appellant.

The judgment of the High Court of Plateau State delivered on September 29, 2023, by DAVID G. MANN, Chief Judge, was upheld.

Cost of N250,000.00 was awarded against the appellant in favor of each of the four Respondents.

ISSUES

Whether the judgment of the trial Court delivered outside the ninety days timeline after conclusion of evidence and final addresses has occasioned a miscarriage of justice to the Appellant?

Whether by the evidence adduced at the lower Court, the Appellant is entitled to judgment?

Whether the trial Court was right in its holding that the counter-claim of the Respondents has been proved?

RATIONES DECIDENDI

DELAY IN DELIVERY OF JUDGMENT – EFFECT OF DELAY BEYOND CONSTITUTIONAL TIMELINE

Miscarriage of justice connotes
decision or outcome of legal proceedings that is prejudicial or inconsistent
with the substantiated rights of the party. Miscarriage of justice means a
reasonable probability of a more favourable outcome of the case for the party
alleging it. Miscarriage of justice is injustice done to the party alleging
it.– Per ABIODUN AZEEM AKINYEMI, J.C.A.

MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE – BURDEN OF PROOF IN CASES OF DELAYED JUDGMENT

The appellant therefore has the burden of proving that but for the delay in the delivery of the judgment, he would have obtained a favourable judgment from the Court. In other words, a party seeking to have a judgment set aside on account of its late delivery must prove that the delay was the main or major reason why he lost the case. It is not enough for him to establish the delay and/or that the judge made a mistake, he must proceed further to prove to the satisfaction of the Court that the mistake was caused by the delay and that the mistake led to the judge deciding the case against him. – Per ABIODUN AZEEM AKINYEMI, J.C.A.

DELAYED JUDGMENT – JUDICIAL APPROACH TO SECTION 294(1) AND (5) OF THE CONSTITUTION

An error or mistake on the part of a Court such as improper evaluation of evidence, wrongful exclusion or consideration of extraneous materials, such as have been alleged by the appellant, can and usually occur even in cases where judgments are delivered within the constitutionally prescribed period. They are grievances that should be ventilated as normal grounds of appeal, without being used to indict a judgment under Section 294(1) and (5) of the Constitution. – Per ABIODUN AZEEM AKINYEMI, J.C.A.

ADMINISTRATIVE SCRUTINY VERSUS JUDICIAL REMEDY – APPROACH TO DELAYED JUDGMENT

Ten months delay in delivering judgment in a case after the adoption of final addresses gives serious cause for concern. Such a situation provides justification for those who are eager to give the Judiciary a bad name to hang it. It creates room for unnecessary suspicion of untoward conduct on the part of the judge, even when he has acted with competence, impartiality and integrity. It unnerves parties and learned counsel. It is not good for the image of the Judiciary. Fortunately, in this case, I have found that no injustice or miscarriage of justice was done that is attributable to the delay. The conduct of the learned trial Chief Judge in this case can therefore only be open to administrative scrutiny rather than the judicial remedy being sought by the appellant.– Per ABIODUN AZEEM AKINYEMI, J.C.A.

TRADITIONAL EVIDENCE – REQUIREMENTS FOR ESTABLISHING ROOT OF TITLE

Where a claimant in an action for declaration of title to land traces his title to someone whose title is based on inheritance under customary law, as in this instance, it is incumbent on the claimant to plead and prove how the inheritance arose. He must plead how the title inherited arose originally, bearing in mind that there are various ways by which original ownership of land may arise. It could be by first settlement/deforestation of a virgin land, conquest during inter-tribal wars etc. Even in the case of conquest, since someone was the owner before the conqueror wrestled it by force of arms, it could not be said to be original ownership. Other forms or sources of title under customary law such as gift or customary grant are not original but derived, and such sources or roots of title cannot be referred to as original ownership. – Per ABIODUN AZEEM AKINYEMI, J.C.A.

PLEADINGS – NECESSITY OF PROPER PLEADINGS IN TRADITIONAL HISTORY

Rather than merely plead that his vendors inherited the land, he must go further to plead specifically, the nature of the ‘original ownership’ giving rise to the inheritance, including details of who the original founder/owner was, when and how he founded the land and how title in the land has devolved from him over generations until it got to the persons who alienated the land to the claimant. – Per ABIODUN AZEEM AKINYEMI, J.C.A.

EVIDENCE OUTSIDE PLEADINGS – EFFECT OF UNPLEADED EVIDENCE

It is obvious that the appellant failed to plead all that he should have pleaded in his statement of claim regarding the root of his title. It does not matter what evidence he gave of the traditional history, having not been pleaded, it goes to no issue and cannot be reckoned with by the Court.– Per ABIODUN AZEEM AKINYEMI, J.C.A.

IDENTITY OF LAND – IMPORTANCE OF PROPER DESCRIPTION OF LAND IN DISPUTE

The primary port of call is his pleadings. At his paragraph 1, he described the land as follows: ‘The Claimant is the son of the holder of, and entitled to, all that piece and parcel of land covered by Plateau State Right of Occupancy number PL.35067…’ The evidence before the Court showed that there is no Right or Certificate of Occupancy in respect of the land in dispute known as No. PL.35067. The number is nothing more than the file number of the application made by the appellant to the 4th respondent for grant of a certificate of occupancy. So, it does not suffice as a description or identification of the land in dispute.– Per ABIODUN AZEEM AKINYEMI, J.C.A.

DESCRIPTION OF LAND – REQUIREMENTS FOR PROPER IDENTIFICATION

Apart from this, in his entire pleading the appellant did not state the size, boundaries, dimensions or even location of the disputed land save in his reliefs where he referred to the land as being situate and lying along Bukuru-Rayfield Road. That is not a sufficient description that would enable a qualified surveyor prepare an accurate survey plan of the land, as required by law. In the circumstance, whatever description of the land that was or may have been given by the witnesses in Court or at the locus in quo goes to no issue, having not been pleaded.– Per ABIODUN AZEEM AKINYEMI, J.C.A.

COUNTERCLAIMS – COMPARISON OF EVIDENCE IN COUNTERCLAIMS

Regarding the counter-claims of the 1st, 2nd and 3rd respondents, their case is that each of them purchased their portions from the original owners. They tendered evidence of purchase and their vendors testified in support of their purchases. They not only pleaded and testified of their purchases, but they also pleaded and proved the titles of their vendors. – Per ABIODUN AZEEM AKINYEMI, J.C.A.

EVALUATION OF TRADITIONAL EVIDENCE – COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF COMPETING CLAIMS

The learned trial judge held at pages 856-857 that their traditional evidence accorded with their pleadings, that there was no break in it and that they convincingly established the root of their titles. He compared the evidence of traditional history adduced by them with that of the appellant and found that of the counter-claimants more probable and credible and believed it. – Per ABIODUN AZEEM AKINYEMI, J.C.A.

BURDEN OF PROOF – FAILURE TO DISCHARGE BURDEN IN LAND CASES

Having failed to properly describe or prove the identity of the land in dispute, the case of the appellant was bound to fail. – Per ABIODUN AZEEM AKINYEMI, J.C.A.

APPELLATE COURT’S POWERS – AFFIRMATION OF LOWER COURT’S JUDGMENT

I find myself in agreement with the learned trial judge that the counterclaimants proved a more credible and believable case than the appellant. Although the appellant’s learned counsel tried to pick some holes and point out contradictions in their evidence, I am not persuaded by his submissions. – Per ABIODUN AZEEM AKINYEMI, J.C.A.