CORAM

---

HUSSEIN MUKHTAR, JUSTICE COURT OF APPEAL

AMINA AUDI WAMBAI, JUSTICE COURT OF APPEAL

FREDERICK OZIAKPONO OHO, JUSTICE COURT OF APPEAL

---

PARTIES

---

APPELLANTS

---

MAMMAN IBRAHIM & ORS

RESPONDENTS 

---

AREA(S) OF LAW

---

APPEAL, LAND LAW, LAW OF EVIDENCE, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

 

---

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Respondents instituted this action in respect of a farmland situated at Gidan Zalla in Bungudu Local Government Area measuring about 148.3 by 277 feet popularly known and called Tsamiyar Dangaji before the Zamfara State High Court, sitting at Gusau Judicial Division wherein by their Writ of Summons and a Statement of Claim, they claimed against the Appellant for declaratory reliefs, injunctive reliefs, amongst other reliefs. At the end of the trial, the Court gave Judgment in favour of the Respondents and granted all the reliefs sought by them. Dissatisfied with the trial Courts Judgment, the Appellant filed a Notice of Appeal containing three (3) Grounds of Appeal.

 

---

HELD

---

Appeal Dismissed

 

---

ISSUES

---

1. Whether the Respondents who were Plaintiffs in this suit discharged the Burden of Proof placed on them establishing their claim to justify the award of the judgment by the trial Court.

2. Whether having regard to the Appellants unchallenged evidence of being in Long possession of the farmland in dispute for over 66 years, was not sufficient to tilt the scale in favor of the Appellant.

 

---

RATIONES DECIDENDI

---

OWNERSHIP OF LAND – METHODS OF PROVING OWNERSHIP OF LAND

---

“There are five (5) well established methods by which title or ownership of land may be proved and these were laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Idundun vs. Okumagba (Supra). While it may not be necessary to go into mentioning of all five (5) methods here, it is important nevertheless, to state that the onus on the Plaintiff seeking to prove title is discharged if he establishes any one of these five (5) methods. See the case of Abel Nkado & Ors vs. Ozulike Obiano & Anor (Supra). -PER F. O. OHO, J.C.A

 

---

OWNERSHIP OF LAND – DETERMINING FACTOR FOR POSSESSION TO CONSTITUTE A MEANS OF PROVING OWNERSHIP OF LAND

---

“It is perhaps, important to note that for possession as an act to constitute a means of proving ownership or title to land, it of course has to be acts of long possession and enjoyment. Usually, occupation or physical control of land either personally or through an agent or servants is a determining factor for possession. See the case of Atipioko Ekpan & Ors vs. Chief Agwu Uyo & Ors. (1986) 33 NWLR (PT. 26) 63 on the issue. -PER F. O. OHO, J.C.A

 

---

DECLARATION OF TITLE TO LAND – HOW THE CONCEPT OF LONG POSSESSION MAY BE USED IN A CLAIM FOR DECLARATION OF TITLE TO LAND

---

“It is important, nevertheless to state here that the concept of long possession in disputes involving land is more of a weapon of defence on equitable grounds to defeat claims for declaration of title and trespass, than one of an offence to establish a claim for declaration of title and damages for trespass as the Respondents as Plaintiffs have sought to do in this case. See the case of Mogaji & Ors vs. Cadbury (Nig) Ltd. (1985) 2 NWLR (PT. 7) 393 at 431. What this therefore amounts to is that acts of long possession are generally produced in evidence by the Defendant in defence of a claim of a declaration of title or of a Right of Occupancy by a Plaintiff. That, of course is clearly not what the Respondents, by pleading and relying on acts of long possession have sought to do in this case.

However, under Section 146 of the Evidence Act, a Plaintiff who sues a defendant in trespass, ordinarily has the duty to prove that possession by prima facie evidence, which I am of the view here that the Respondents as Plaintiff have succeeded in doing in this case. But where the defendant also claims ownership of the land he is alleged to have trespassed on as it has been done in this case, then the evidential burden to prove his claim of ownership passes to that defendant. See the case of Dacosta vs. Ikomi (1968) 1 ALL NLR, 394 at 398 and other decided cases in this regard.

In other words, in order to get the judgment of Court, the defendant has the onus to rebut the evidence of the Plaintiffs evidence of long possession and enjoyment. See also the case of Onyekaonwu Vs. Ekwubiri (1966) 1 ALL NLR 32. -PER F. O. OHO, J.C.A

 

---

CASES CITED

---

Not Available

 

---

STATUTES REFERRED TO

---

Evidence Act, 2011

 

---

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT