BASSEY AKPAN ARCHIBONG V. THE STATE
June 6, 2025ODUTOLA HOLDINGS LIMITED & ORS V. MR. KUNLE LADEJOBI & ORS
June 6, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (2006-05) Legalpedia 56797 (SC)
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Abuja
Fri May 12, 2006
Suit Number: SC.329/2001
CORAM
U. A. KALGO JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
A. O. EJIWUNMI JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
D. MUSDAPHER JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
M. MOHAMMED JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
W. S. N. ONNOGHEN JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
PARTIES
DAVID MBANI (For and as representing Ndakaa Family, Lusue Sogho, Bolga, Rivers State) APPELLANT
APPELLANTS
MBIABE BOSI
NKIKIRI AKUANE NDIM MAKAE NLUBUE NSALO
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
DECLARATION OF TITLE
SUMMARY OF FACTS
In the action filed by the appellants at the trial High Court, the appellants/ plaintiffs claimed title to the piece or parcel of land in dispute between the parties. The claim of the appellant was that the land in dispute forms part of the land of his ancestor who acquired same by original settlement, but later granted portions thereof to the 1st respondents’ ancestor named Agoo Gbosi on condition that the land would revert to the grantor if and when the grantee or his successors decided to leave. Appellant contended that between 1976 and 1977 the 1st respondent sold portions of the land to other defendants/respondents thereby denying their overlord’s title. On, the other hand, the respondents’ case is that the land was originally acquired by the ancestor of the 1st respondent which land subsequently devolved on 1st respondent who, in exercise of her rights of ownership, sold portions thereof to others including other respondents. At the conclusion of the trial, the learned trial judge rejected the version of the appellant and dismissed his claim resulting in his appeal to the Court of Appeal. The appeal was dismissed. He further appealed to the Supreme Court.
HELD
The appeal was dismissed due to lack of merit.
ISSUES
Whether the Court below was right by confirming the decision of the trial judge in this suit? Or whether the decision of the trial court was properly confirmed by the court below?
RATIONES DECIDENDI
THE BURDEN OF PROOF ON THE PLAINTIFF SEEKING FOR A DECLARATION OF TITLE
“The duty lies on the plaintiff seeking for a declaration of title to land to lead such evidence as would lead a Court to make that declaration in his favor.” Per A.O. EJIWUNMI, JSC
CASES CITED
Idundun V. Okumagba (1976) 9-10 SC 227, (2001) 6 SCM, 186; (1976) 1 NMLR 200
Omoregie V. Idugienwanye (1985) 2 NWLR 41 at 54 – 59
Piaro V. Tenalo (1976) 12 SC 31 at 37
Achiakpa V. Nditka (2001) FWLR (Pt.71) 1804 SCM 16 page 282, (2001) 11 SCM 16
STATUTES REFERRED TO
Cases referred to in the judgment
Achiakpa V. Nduka (2001) FWLR (Pt.71) 1804 SC, (2001) 11 SCM 16
Adesanoye V. Adewole (2000) 9 NWLR (Pt671)127
Afegbai V. Attorney General Edo State (2001) FWLR (Pt. 69) 1352; (2001) 11 SCM 42; (2001) 14 NWLR (Pt. 733) 425
Akaighe V. Idama (1964) All NLR (Reprint) 317
Arabambi V. Advance Beverages Ind. Ltd (2006) All FWLR 581
Bob Akaighe V. Idama (1964) ALL NLR
Enang V. Adu (1981) 11 – 12 SC 25
Garba V. State (2000) 6 NWLR (Pt. 661) 378
Honika Sawmill (Nig) Ltd V. Hoff (1994) 2 NWLR (Pt. 326) 252
Idundun V. Okumagba (1976) 9-10 SC 227; (1976) 1 NMLR 200, (2001) 6 SCM, 186
Igwego V. Ezeugo (1992) 6 NWLR (Pt. 249) 561
Kojo II V. Bosie (1957) 1 WLR 1223
Nwadike V. Ibekwe (Pt. 67) 718
Omoregie V. Idugienwanye (1985) 2 NWLR 41
