Legalpedia Citation: (2025-05) Legalpedia 55141 (CA)

In the Court of Appeal

Thu May 8, 2025

Suit Number: CA/MK/200/2023

CORAM

PARTIES

EDWARD PAM

APPELLANTS

NEPA (FESTAC) DISTRICT STAFF COOPERATIVE THRIFT AND CREDIT SOCIETY

RESPONDENTS

AREA(S) OF LAW

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, LAND LAW, PROPERTY LAW, EVIDENCE LAW, APPEAL, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE, BURDEN OF PROOF, TITLE TO LAND, TRADITIONAL EVIDENCE, DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE, FORGERY, LAND USE ACT, RIGHT OF OCCUPANCY

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Respondent (NEPA FESTAC District Staff Cooperative Thrift and Credit Society) claimed ownership of a parcel of land measuring about 3.3 hectares situated at Ado, Kugbaru Road, Anakomi, Karu Local Government Area of Nasarawa State, which it allegedly acquired by purchase from Mrs. Mabel Amoni Okwuonu through her agent Anthony Iwebunor (deceased) in 2008. The Respondent had been in peaceful possession of the land, fenced it, and employed a security officer until the Appellant joined the action in 2018. The Respondent traced its title through Exhibit L, an agreement for sale of land between the Appellant and Mabel Amoni Okwuonu, the Respondent’s predecessor-in-title.

The Appellant, who was the defendant at the lower court, filed a counter-claim against the plaintiff and 16 defendants, with the Respondent being the 8th defendant to the counter-claim. The Appellant claimed declaration of title to land measuring 9.800 and 3.27 hectares situated at Anakomi village, Kugbawaru road, Karu LGA, Nasarawa State. The Appellant entirely denied selling any land to the Respondent’s predecessor-in-title and specifically denied executing Exhibit L, alleging that it was forged.

The lower court (Nasarawa State High Court sitting in Lafia) held that the Respondent proved its title to 3.3 hectares of land being part of the large expanse of land declared in favour of the Appellant. The court granted the Appellant’s claim in part, declaring title in his favour but excluding the 3.3 hectares granted to the Respondent. Dissatisfied with this decision, the Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal.

HELD

The appeal was dismissed. The Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the lower court, finding that the Respondent had proved its title to the 3.3 hectares of land through credible and cogent evidence. The court held that the Appellant could not make one case in his pleadings at the lower court claiming 3.3 hectares of land and an entirely different and inconsistent case on appeal claiming only 1.3 hectares. The court found that the Appellant’s arguments on appeal were inconsistent with his case at the lower court and that parties must be consistent with their cases from the trial court to the appellate court. The decision of the trial court was affirmed in its entirety.

ISSUES

1. Whether by the lower court’s holding that the Appellant proved title by traditional evidence to the entire land which the 3.3 hectares granted to the Respondent forms part of, the lower court ought not to have granted to the Appellant a declaration of title to the 1.3 hectares of land occupied by the Respondent which is in excess of the 2.0 hectares of land, being its root of title.?
2. Whether the lower court was not wrong to have granted the 3.3 hectares of land occupied by the Respondent to it in the absence of any proof that it validly acquired title to the 1.3 hectares of land which is in excess of the 2.0 hectares its predecessor-in-title purchased and only had title to.?
3. Whether the lower court did not miscarry justice when it granted the entire 3.3 hectares of land occupied by the Respondent to it on the basis of Exhibit K (Statutory Right of Occupancy).?

RATIONES DECIDENDI

BURDEN OF PROOF IN LAND DISPUTES – PLAINTIFF MUST SUCCEED ON STRENGTH OF OWN CASE:

“As a matter of fact under our law, a party who has laid claim to the title of land can only succeed on the strength of his case and not on the weakness of the defendants. This is to say that the plaintiff has to adduce legally valid cogent evidence in order to discharge the burden of proof of the fact that the title of the land is vested in her.” – Per NEHIZENA IDEMUDIA AFOLABI, JCA

BURDEN OF PROOF – PROVISIONS OF EVIDENCE ACT 2011:

“Whoever desires any court to
give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of
facts which he assert shall prove that those facts exist. The burden of in a
suit or proceeding lies on that person who would fail if no evidence at all
were given on either side.” – Per NEHIZENA IDEMUDIA AFOLABI, JCA

SHIFTING OF BURDEN OF PROOF – WHEN PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE IS ADDUCED:

“However, once the plaintiff has adduced sufficient prima facie evidence to entitle her to the relief sought, the onus shifts to the defendant notwithstanding the fact that the plaintiff must succeed on the strength of his own case. This is so, because even though the burden of proof is on a plaintiff who seeks declaration of title to land, yet Section 133(2) of the Evidence Act 2011 provides that, if the party upon whom the burden of proof lies adduces evidence which ought reasonably to satisfy the court that the fact sought to be proved is established, the burden lies on the party against whom judgment would be given if no more evidence were adduced.” – Per NEHIZENA IDEMUDIA AFOLABI, JCA

METHODS OF PROVING TITLE TO LAND – FIVE ESTABLISHED WAYS:

“Judicially established methods of proving title to land have been well articulated with a foremost authority found in the case of Idundun V. Okamagba (1976) 9-10 SC 227 wherein the supreme court prescribed five ways of proving title to land thus: By traditional evidence; By various acts of ownership numerous and positive and extending over a length of time as to warrant the inference of ownership; By production of title documents; By acts of lawful enjoyment and possession of the land; By proof of possession of adjacent land in circumstances which render it probable that the owner of the other land.” – Per NEHIZENA IDEMUDIA AFOLABI, JCA

SUFFICIENCY OF SINGLE ROOT OF TITLE – ONE METHOD IS ENOUGH:

“A claimant must plead and prove any of these five different ways of proving ownership of land, though he need not prove more than one of these ways. Proof of one single root of title is sufficient to sustain the claimant’s declaration of title to land. Thus, a declaration of title to land can be granted on the basis of proof of one root of title alone, provided it is cogent and credible.” – Per NEHIZENA IDEMUDIA AFOLABI, JCA

REQUIREMENTS FOR TITLE DOCUMENTS TO CONSTITUTE PROOF – FOUR ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS:

“By production of the title document, it does not mean by any stretch of the requirement that the Respondent has proved his case, but before the document of title can amount to sufficient proof of ownership, the court must satisfy itself that; Whether the document is genuine? Whether it has been duly executed stamp and registered? Whether the grantor had the capacity or authority to make the grant; Whether it had the effect claimed by the holder of the instrument.” – Per NEHIZENA IDEMUDIA AFOLABI, JCA

REQUIREMENTS FOR TITLE DOCUMENTS TO CONSTITUTE PROOF – FOUR ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS:

“By production of the title document, it does not mean by any stretch of the requirement that the Respondent has proved his case, but before the document of title can amount to sufficient proof of ownership, the court must satisfy itself that; Whether the document is genuine? Whether it has been duly executed stamp and registered? Whether the grantor had the capacity or authority to make the grant; Whether it had the effect claimed by the holder of the instrument.” – Per NEHIZENA IDEMUDIA AFOLABI, JCA

BURDEN IN TRADITIONAL HISTORY CLAIMS – ESSENTIAL FACTS TO ESTABLISH:

“Where a party relies on traditional history in proof of title to land, he must give satisfactory evidence as to how he derived the particular title pleaded and claimed. He is bound to plead and established facts such as; Who founded the land. How he founded the land. The particulars of the intervening owners through whom he claims.” – Per NEHIZENA IDEMUDIA AFOLABI, JCA

NATURE OF APPEAL – REVIEW NOT RETRIAL:

“Now an appeal is an invitation to a higher court to review the decision of the lower court, with a view to finding out whether in a proper consideration of the totality of the evidence placed before it vis-a-viz the evidence and the applicable laws the court arrived at a correct decision. Thus, appeal is basically the continuation of the case at the lower court. It presupposes the existence of some determination or some decisions appealed against.” – Per NEHIZENA IDEMUDIA AFOLABI, JCA

APPEAL AS REHEARING ON RECORD – NOT RETRIAL:

“Thus, an appeal is not for retrying the action, rather it is rehearing on the record of appeal. The appeal court only reviews the decision of the lower court to find out if it came to the correct decision. And since the aim of the appeal is to find out whether on the facts, the law and arguments presented to it the lower court was wrong or right in the decision it arrived at. It follows that the rightfulness or wrongness has to be determined in line with the pleadings and evidence led thereon.” – Per NEHIZENA IDEMUDIA AFOLABI, JCA

CONSISTENCY IN PLEADINGS – PARTIES MUST MAINTAIN CONSISTENT POSITIONS:

“A party should thus be consistent in proving it. He would not be allowed to take one stance in the lower then another stance on appeal. The entire argument of the learned counsel for the Appellant on his three issues in this appeal, though delivered with dogged tenacity may at best be laudable for its erudition but, the argument and the cases cited thereon will in the final analysis run contrary to the spirit and letter of Appellant’s case at the lower court.” – Per NEHIZENA IDEMUDIA AFOLABI, JCA

PROHIBITION AGAINST INCONSISTENT CLAIMS – CANNOT CHANGE CASE ON APPEAL:

“The Appellant cannot make one case in his pleadings at the lower court in claiming 3.3 hectares of land and an entirely different and inconsistent case on appeal in claiming 1.3 hectares which he claimed to be in excess of the 2.0 and hope to win on appeal. He cannot.” – Per NEHIZENA IDEMUDIA AFOLABI, JCA

COURT’S EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE – AFFIRMATION OF TRIAL COURT’S FINDINGS:

“Now on a proper understanding of the pleadings of the parties and the evidence both oral and documentary led thereon by them, and upon calm evaluation and scrutiny of these pieces of evidence, I cannot but agree with the findings of the trial as correct, sound and representing the true facts and the applicable principles of law to the cases of the respective parties in this appeal.” – Per NEHIZENA IDEMUDIA AFOLABI, JCA

CASES CITED

STATUTES REFERRED TO

• Evidence Act 2011 (Sections 131(1), 132, 133(2))
• Land Use Act, Cap. L5, LFN 2004
• Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended)

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT