FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA V NASIRU YAHAYA
April 9, 2025KABIRU ABOKI BADA VS PEOPLE OF LAGOS STATE
April 9, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (2019) Legalpedia (CA) 14391
In the Court of Appeal
HOLDEN AT YOLA
Wed Jan 23, 2019
Suit Number: CA/YL/5/2015
CORAM
ABDU ABOKI (PJ)
HON. JUSTICE JAMES SHEHU ABIRIYI
PARTIES
EMMANUEL D. TSOKWATSOKWA OIL & MARKETING CO. (NIG) LTD APPELLANTS
AUGUSTINE LINGMUMONDAY DANJUMANATIONAL UNION OF ROAD TRANSPORT WORKERS (NURTW)ARDO KOLA LOCAL GOVERNMENT COUNCILTHE PERMANENT SECRETARY, BUREAU FOR LAND AND SURVEY, JALINGOATTORNEY GENERAL, TARABA STATEMATHEW BONIFACE KAMAIALH. JIBIR MOHAMMED BELLOMOHAMMED SANUSI BABA DADDALAWIN NIGERIA LIMITED RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The facts of the case as alleged by the Plaintiffs/Appellants are that sometime in 1981, the 1st Appellant was approached by one Alhaji Yusufu Kadiri who informed the 1st Appellant that he wanted to sell the land in dispute to the 1st Appellant, that due to his age, he wanted to go back to the village. The 1st Appellant alleged that he agreed to buy the said land which was sold to him for Three Hundred and Fifty Thousand Naira. According to the 1st Appellant, the said land in dispute was bought for the 2nd Appellant in 1981, before the 2nd Appellant was incorporated. The 1st Appellant then entered into pre-incorporation contract on behalf of the 2nd Appellant. Upon the ratification of the pre-incorporation contract by the directors, the 2nd Appellant became the owner of the land. It was this said disputed land that the 1st and 3rd Respondents trespassed on. The Plaintiffs/Appellants then brought a claim jointly and severally against the Respondents for a declaration that the Appellants are owners and holders of rights, title and interest over land in dispute among other reliefs. The Appellants further stated that the 7th Respondent applied to join the suit while the 9th and 10th Respondents encroached into the disputed land by selling portions of the said land to people. In their joint defence, the 1st,2nd and 7th Respondents alleged that the 1st Respondent bought part of the said land in dispute sometime in 1992 from a witnesses’ mother and a sale agreement was signed. The 7th Respondent in his defence alleged that the land was initially given to him by one Jauro Muya of Agbaru family as a gift. The 5th and 6th Respondents in their defence stated that they called the Assistant director of survey department who informed them that he was assigned to prepare a site plan. After considering the evidence adduced by some of the parties, the trial court dismissed the claim of the Appellants and entered judgment in favour of the 7th Respondent. Dissatisfied with the decision of the trial judge, the Appellant filed a notice of appeal which was amended and further amended on the grounds that the trial court was wrong when it held that the Appellants case was not proved to warrant judgment in their favour.
HELD
Appeal Dismissed
ISSUES
Whether from the pleadings and evidence adduced and etched out by the 1st, 2nd, and 10 Respondents, the founder or the original owner of the land was in dispute to have warranted/necessitated the pleading and proving of same by the Appellants? (Distilled from ground 1). Whether taking into cognizance the evidence adduced by the Appellants, the trial Court was right when she held that their case was not proved to warrant judgment being entered in their favour? (Distilled from grounds 2 and 4). Whether from the pleadings of the 7th Defendant before the lower Court, who is now represented by the 7th Respondent in this appeal and the evidence adduced for him, his counter claim can be said to have been proved to warrant/justify judgment being entered in his favour? (Distilled from ground 3) Whether the findings of the trial Court to the effect that the statement of defence of the 9th and 10th Respondents were abandoned and therefore, could not count when the Appellant relied on the facts of common founder of the land in dispute was indubitable? (Distilled from ground 5) Whether the 3rd and 4th Respondents who did not file any statement of defence despite being served with the statement of claim of the Appellants could freely in his written address attack the pleadings of the Appellant? (Distilled from ground 6).
RATIONES DECIDENDI
DECLARATORY RELIEFS – CONDITIONS FOR THE GRANT OF DECLARATORY RELIEFS
“It is settled law that declaratory reliefs are not granted as a matter of course and on a platter of gold. They are only granted when credible evidence has been led by the plaintiff or person seeking the declaratory relief. A declaratory relief will be granted where the plaintiff is entitled to the relief in the fullest meaning of the word. It is the law that the plaintiff must plead and prove his claim for declaratory relief without relying on the evidence called by the defendant. A declaratory relief is not granted even on admission by the defendant. However, there is nothing wrong in a plaintiff taking advantage of any evidence adduced by the defence which tends to establish the plaintiff’s title. See Chukwumah vs. S.P.D.C (Nig) Ltd (1993) LPELR-864 SC page 64 – 65, Anyaru vs. Mandilas Ltd (2007) 4 SCNJ 288, Matanmi & Ors vs. Dada & Anor (2013) LPELR-9929 and Oguanuhu vs. Chiegboka (2013) 2 SCNJ 6930 at 707.”
PROOF OF OWNERSHIP OF LAND – WAYS OF PROVING OWNERSHIP OF LAND
“It is also an established principle of law that proof of title to or ownership of land can be established by any of the following fives ways:
By traditional evidence;
By production of documents of title duly authenticated in the sense that their due execution must be proved;
By positive acts of ownership extending over a sufficient length of time;
By acts of long possession and enjoyment of the land;
By proof of possession of connected or adjacent land in circumstances rendering it probable that the owner of such would in addition be the owner of the land in dispute.
See Ayoola vs. Odofin (1984) 11 SC 120, Nkado vs. Obiano (1997) 5 NWLR (Pt. 503) 31, Nkwo vs. Iboe (1998) 7 NWLR (Pt. 558) 354 and Adesanya vs. Aderounmu (2000) 6 SC (Pt. 11) 18.”
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE -WHETHER ORAL EVIDENCE IS REQUIRED IN SUPPORT OF DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE
“Documents admitted in evidence no matter how useful they could be would not be of much assistance to the Court in the absence of admissible oral evidence by persons who can explain their purport. It is necessary to call oral evidence. This is because documents cannot be cross examined. See the decision of the Supreme Court in Alao vs. Akano (2005) 11 NWLR (Pt. 935) 160 and the judgment of this Court in Egba vs. Appoh (2005) 10 NWLR (Pt. 934) 164.”
PLEADINGS- WHETHER AVERMENTS IN PLEADINGS CONSTITUTES EVIDENCE
“It is trite law that averments in pleadings are no evidence and can never be construed as such. They have to be proved by evidence subject however to admission by the other party. Where evidence is not led the averments in pleadings are deemed abandoned. Before a Court decides whether there is admission in pleadings it is the totality of the pleadings that must be considered and it will be unjust to invoke only a few paragraphs of the pleading to come to a conclusion. See N.A.S Ltd vs. UBA Plc (2005) All FWLR (Pt. 284) 275, A.S.H.D.C. vs. Emekwue (1996) 1 NWLR (Pt. 426) 505, Arabambi vs. Advance Beverage Ltd (2005) 19 NWLR (Pt. 959) 1 and Buhari vs. Obasanjo (2005) 13 NWLR (Pt. 941) 1.”
EVIDENCE- WHETHER EVIDENCE EXTRACTED UNDER CROSS EXAMINATION THAT IS CONTRARY TO THE FACTS PLEADED BY THE PLAINTIFF CAN BE RELIED UPON
“It is the law that evidence extracted under cross examination that is contrary to the facts pleaded by the plaintiff cannot be relied upon by the plaintiff. See Buhari vs. Obasanjo (2005) 2 NWLR (Pt. 910) 241.”
TITLE TO LAND –WHETHER A PLAINTIFF WHO PLEADS PURCHASE AS HIS ROOT OF TITLE CAN RELY ON OTHER MEANS OF PROVING TITLE WHEN HIS PURCHASE FAILS
“Where a party, in a claim of title to land pleads purchase as his root of title, he either succeeds in proving the purchase or he fails. If he fails to prove the title pleaded, he cannot turn round to rely on acts of possession or acts of ownership. See Okhuarobo vs. Aigbe (2002) 9 NWLR (Pt. 771) 29.”
ACTS OF LONG POSSESSION– WHETHER ACTS OF LONG POSSESSION CAN BE RELIED ON BY A PARTY AS PROOF OF ROOT OF TITLE
“Although they did not plead long possession of the land as their root of title, the learned counsel for the Appellants has peddled long possession and enjoyment of land as evidence of title to the land by the Appellants. He is not permitted to do so. See Okhuarobo vs. Aigbe (supra). In any case it was not admitted by the parties that the Appellants had been in long possession of the land in dispute. See Ezukwu vs. Ukachukwu (2004) 17 NWLR (Pt. 902) 227 and Udeze vs. Chidebe (1990) 1 NWLR (Pt. 125) 141.”
COUNTER CLAIM- NATURE OF A COUNTER CLAIM
“The fate of a counterclaim, being an independent action, does not depend upon the outcome of the plaintiffs claim. Therefore, where the plaintiff’s claim is dismissed, stayed or discountenanced, the Court may proceed with the counterclaim. See the decisions of this Court in Ogbonda vs. Eke (1998) 10 NWLR (Pt. 568) 73 and Hassan vs. Reg. Trustees Baptist Conv. (1993) 7 NWLR (Pt. 308) 679.”
UNCHALLENGED EVIDENCE – DUTY OF A TRIAL COURT TO EXAMINE WHETHER OR NOT THE UNCHALLENGED EVIDENCE IS SUFFICIENT TO ESTABLISH THE CLAIMS MADE BY A PARTY
“The position of the law is that where an adversary fails to adduce evidence to put on the other side of the imaginary scale of justice, a minimum evidence adduced by the other side would suffice to prove the case. However, even if the evidence in a case goes one direction in that it is not challenged, the trial Court is still expected to examine whether or not the unchallenged evidence is sufficient to establish the claims made by the party in whose favour the unchallenged evidence is given. See Newbreed vs. Erhomosele (2006) 2 SCNJ 198 at 215; and Martchem vs. Kent (2005) SCNJ 235 at 243.”
DEFENCE –WHETHER A FAILURE TO FILE A DEFENCE AMOUNTS TO ADMISSION
“It is therefore not the law as learned counsel for the Appellants contended that failure to file a defence amounts to admission of the case as it relates to the 3rd and 4th Respondents. The Appellants were still expected to lead evidence even if minimal in proof of their claim against the 3rd and 4th Respondents.”
CASES CITED
None
STATUTES REFERRED TO
None|
