CORAM
I.L. KUTIGI, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT
M.E. OGUNDARE, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT
S.U. ONU, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT
O. ACHIKE, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT
U.A. KALGO, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT
PARTIES
1. CHIEF ASABA EMIRI
2. CHIEF JOHN EMIRI
3. ETENKWU EMIRI
4. PATRICK EMIRI
4. ALBERTIKANE (For themselves and on behalf of the Emiri family)
APPELLANTS
1. CHIEF DOMINIC IMIEYEH
2. PASTOR OBI EMIRI (For themselves and on behalf of Umu-Edeme-Opia family of Ase)
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
LAND LAW-DECLARATION-INJUNCTION-FORFEITURE ORDER
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The respondents claimed against the appellants a declaration that they are the owners in possession of the said land, an order of injunction against the appellants and an order of forfeiture against the 1st and 2nd appellants
HELD
The court held that there has been concurrent findings of fact made by both the trial court and the Court of Appeal, as a result of which the appellants lost in both courts and as such would not tamper with the findings of both courts and accordingly dismissed the appeal
ISSUES
“l. Whether the respondents are not estopped from claiming proprietary interest over land in dispute in the face of their admission contained in EXHIBIT “C” that the land belongs to the Government.
2. Whether the respondents had discharged the onus on them to show clearly the exact area of land in respect of which they sought declaration of title and injunction.
3. Whether it was proper for the Court of Appeal to amend the order of the trial court in the circumstances of this matter.”
RATIONES DECIDENDI
IMPORTANCE OF ASCERTAINING DEFINITE AND PRECISE BOUNDARIES OF LAND CLAIMED
‘It has long been established by a plethora of decided cases of this court that in a claim for declaration of title to land, a plaintiff must produce sufficient evidence to ascertain the definite and precise boundaries of the land claimed, in order to be entitled to the grant. The acid test on the sufficiency of such proof is whether a surveyor taking the record of proceedings, can produce a plan showing accurately the land to which title has been given.’ – Kalgo, JSC.
MODE OF ESTABLISHING IDENTITY OF LAND IN DISPUTE
‘One important way now commonly used by parties in land dispute is to establish the identity of the land in dispute by filing a detailed and accurate survey plan of the land showing the various features on such land sufficient to point to the clear boundaries thereof.’- Kalgo, JSC.
WHETHER MANDATORY TO PRODUCE A SURVEY PLAN IN ORDER FOR A GRANT TO BE MADE
‘It also appears to me that in a claim for declaration of title to land, once there are some features or some descriptions in the evidence which make a disputed land ascertainable, the identity of the land is proved and a grant can be made with or without a survey plan’- Kalgo, JSC.
ON POWER OF COURT OF APPEAL TO AMMEND JUDGMENT OF THE LOWER COURT
‘It seems to me therefore that the Court of Appeal has full powers and jurisdiction to amend any judgment or order of the trial High Court on an appeal before it, whether the amendment to be made arises from clerical error or a mere “slip” or not, provided that it was supported by evidence on record and was done to settle matters in controversy between the parties and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and to do substantial justice between the parties’- Kalgo, JSC.
ATTITUDE OF THE SPUPREMEM COURT TO CONCURRENT FINDINGS OF THE LOWER COURTS
‘It has been held in many decisions of this court that the Supreme Court will not interfere with the concurrent findings of fact made by the said lower courts where there is sufficient evidence in support of such findings and where there is no substantial error apparent on the record such as miscarriage of justice or a violation of some principle of law or procedure.’- Kalgo, JSC.
CASES CITED
Bamgboye v. Olanrewaju (1991) 4 NWLR (Pt.184) 132
Olaniyan v. Unilag (1985) 1 NWLR (Pt. 9) 599
Sanyaolu v. Coker (1983) 3 SC 124 at page 163: (1983) 1 SCNLR 168
Alhaji Raji Oduola & Ors. v. S.B. Coker & Ors. (1981) 5 SC 197
Iriri v.Erhurhobara (1991) 2 NWLR (Pt. 173) 252;
Ozibe v. Aigbe (1977) 7 SC. 1;
Epi v. Aigbedion (1972) 10 SC 53;
Buraimoh v. Bamigbose (1989) 3 NWLR (Pt. 109) 352
Ate Kwadzo v. Kwasi Adjei (1944) 10 WACA 274;
Arabe v. Asanlu (1980) 5-7 SC 78;
Okoya v. Santilli (1990) 2 NWLR (Part 131) 172;
Fatuade v. Onwoamanam (1990) 2 NWLR (Part 132) 322
STATUTES REFERRED TO
Land Use Decree 1978
Court of Appeal Act, 1976