CORAM
PARTIES
EMMANUEL ATUME APPELLANTS
RAYMOND PWANOGOSHIN BAKODO RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
Not Available
SUMMARY OF FACTS
By an amended statement of claim, the Plaintiff/Respondent sought before the Adamawa State High Court a declaration that by virtue of the Certificate of Occupancy No. GS/13993 dated 12th December 2006, the Plaintiff is entitled to right of use and occupation of all that parcel of land lying, being and situate at Namtari District, Yola South Local Government Area of Adamawa State, the sum of N500,000 (Five Hundred Thousand Naira) only being general damages against the Defendant for trespass and an order of perpetual injunction restraining the Defendant, his servants, agents and /or privies from further fomenting acts of trespass on the said parcel of land in any manner whatsoever. At the end of the trial, the lower court entered judgment for the Plaintiff/Respondent. Dissatisfied with the judgment, the Appellant with the leave of court granted has filed a Notice of Appeal.
HELD
Appeal Dismissed
ISSUES
Whether the learned Trial Court Judge was right when he held that the Plaintiff has proved all his claims before the Court on the preponderance of evidence. Whether the learned Trial Court Judge was right when he granted reliefs not sought. Whether the learned Trial Court Judge was right when he entered Judgment for the Plaintiff on proceedings conducted under extant rules.
RATIONES DECIDENDI
DECLARATION OF TITLE TO LAND – DUTY OF A PARTY CLAIMING DECLARATION OF TITLE TO LAND
“It is trite that in land matters whoever claims declaration of title to land must succeed on the strength of his case and not on the weakness of the defence. See Ogundepo v. Olumesan (2012) ALL FWLR (Part 609) 1136. Among the ways for proof of title to land is by production of documentary evidence.
REVOCATION OF A RIGHT OF OCCUPANCY – PURPORT OF SECTION 28(6 &(7) ON THE REVOCATION OF A RIGHT OF OCCUPANCY
“It is important at this stage to note that Section 28 (6) of the Land Use Act provides:-
“The revocation of a right of occupancy shall be signified under the hand of a public officer duly authorized in that behalf by the Governor and notice thereof shall be given to the holder” Section 28 (7) of the same Act provides that:-
“The title of the holder of the right of occupancy shall be extinguished on receipt by him of a notice given under sub section 6”
NOTICE OF REVOCATION OF A RIGHT OF OCCUPANCY – PURPOSE OF GIVING NOTICE OF REVOCATION OF A RIGHT OF OCCUPANCY
In the case of Kandix HD v. Attorney General & Commissioner for Justice C.R.S. (Supra) this Court Held that:-
“The purpose of giving notice of revocation of a right of occupancy is to duly inform the holder thereof, the steps being taken to extinguish his right of occupancy. In the absence of a proper notice of revocation of right of occupancy, the purported revocation of that right of occupancy by the Governor or officer duly authorized by the Governor is ineffectual”.
ADAMAWA STATE HIGH COURT (CIVIL PROCEDURE) RULES 2013 – WHETHER NON-COMPLIANCE WITH THE ADAMAWA STATE HIGH COURT (CIVIL PROCEDURE) RULES 2013 RENDERS THE PROCEEDINGS NULL AND VOID
“it is important to note that Order 3 Rules (2) and (3) of the 2013 Rules provides that non-compliance with the Rules shall be treated as a mere irregularity and does not render the proceedings null and void.
CASES CITED
Not Available
STATUTES REFERRED TO
Adamawa State High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2013|Land Use Act|
CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT