CORAM

---

Peter Chudi Obiorah Justice Court of Appeal

Eberechi Suzzette Nyesom-Wike Justice Court of Appeal

Oyejoju Oyebiola Oyewumi Justice Court of Appeal

---

PARTIES

---

1. GEORGE TOZHEWO

2. MICHEAL ZADOWULU

3. MATHEW ISHIAKU

4. SARKI SAMARI

5. SOLOMON FADO-SARKIN YAKI

6. SUNDAY SARKIN GONZHEWO

7. YAKUBU HARUNA MADAKI

8. ADAMU HARUNA

9. SAMULE GALAGULU (For themselves and on behalf of all Indigenes/members of Kuchbedna village, FCT

APPELLANTS 

---

1. WINNING CLAUSE LIMITED

2. THE HON. MINISTER, FCT

RESPONDENTS 

---

AREA(S) OF LAW

---

LAND LAW, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, PROPERTY LAW, ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, EVIDENCE, CONTRACT LAW, CIVIL PROCEDURE, LOCUS STANDI, APPEAL, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

 

---

SUMMARY OF FACTS

This appeal arose from a land dispute over Plot 67 Kafe District, Abuja. The 1st Respondent (Winning Clause Limited) initiated the action at the lower court as plaintiff, claiming ownership of the land based on allocation by the 2nd Respondent (The Honorable Minister, FCT). The Appellants (George Tozhewo and 8 others) counterclaimed, asserting rights to the land as original inhabitants of Kuchbedna village in the FCT whose occupation predated the creation of the Federal Capital Territory.

The 1st Respondent’s claim was founded on a development lease/contract with the FCT Minister for the purpose of mass housing development. They presented documentary evidence including an offer letter, acceptance letter, development lease agreement, receipts of payment, and building plan approvals. The 2nd Respondent, through their witness (an Estate Officer in the Lands Administration Office of FCDA), confirmed the allocation of the plot to the 1st Respondent.

The Appellants, on the other hand, contended they were indigenous inhabitants of Kuchbedna village with ancestral rights to the land that predated the establishment of the FCT in 1976. They argued they should not be disturbed in their possession without being provided alternative accommodation or land with adequate infrastructure.

The High Court of the Federal Capital Territory ruled in favor of the 1st Respondent, granting their claims and dismissing the Appellants’ counterclaim as an abuse of court process. Dissatisfied with this judgment, the Appellants appealed to the Court of Appeal.

 

---

HELD

---

1. The appeal was dismissed for lacking merit.

2. The judgment of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory in Suit No. CV/1805/2015: WINNING CLAUSE LIMITED v. GEORGE TOZHEWO & 9 OTHERS delivered on the 12th day of March, 2021 by Hon. Justice A. O. Ebong was affirmed.

3. The Court held that the Appellants had no valid claim to the land as they could not prove title to it under any of the five established methods of proving land ownership in Nigeria.

4. The Court confirmed that by virtue of Sections 297(2) and 302 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) and Sections 1(3) and 18 of the Federal Capital Territory Act, all lands in the FCT vest absolutely in the Federal Government of Nigeria and can only be validly allocated by the Minister of the FCT.

5. The Court found that the 1st Respondent had established a valid title to the land through documentary evidence and the admission of the 2nd Respondent.

6. Costs of N500,000.00 were awarded in favor of the 1st Respondent against the Appellants.

 

---

ISSUES

---

Whether or not the decision of the lower Court is consistent with the evidence led at the trial?

 

---

RATIONES DECIDENDI

---

OWNERSHIP OF LAND IN FCT – LEGAL BASIS FOR FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OWNERSHIP

---

“I can only reiterate that the counter claim of the Appellants overlooks the fact and import of the designation of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja as home and capital city for Nigeria. All the land comprised within the said Federal Capital Territory was acquired by the Federal Government and any prior ownership rights of the original owners duly extinguished. All the lands comprised in the Federal Capital Territory became vested in the Federal Government of Nigeria.” – Per PETER CHUDI OBIORAH, J.C.A.

 

---

VESTING OF LAND IN FEDERAL GOVERNMENT – CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS

---

“I think the Appellants, by the nature of their counterclaim, wants to use this case to re-write and upturn the clear provisions of Sections 297(2) and 302 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) which in unmistaken and emphatic terms declared: ‘297(2) The ownership of all lands comprised in the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja shall vest in the Government of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.'” – Per PETER CHUDI OBIORAH, J.C.A.

 

---

POWERS OF FCT MINISTER – EXCLUSIVE AUTHORITY TO ALLOCATE LAND

---

“From a combined reading and comprehension of the above provisions of the Constitution and the Federal Capital Territory Act, it is clear as daylight that the only person who can allocate land in the Federal Capital Territory Abuja or sign any document relating to Statutory Right of Occupancy in the Federal Capital Territory is the Honourable Minister of Federal Capital Territory or any person to whom he has legally delegated his powers to act on his behalf.” – Per PETER CHUDI OBIORAH, J.C.A.

 

---

METHODS OF PROVING LAND OWNERSHIP – ESTABLISHED PRINCIPLE

---

“My Noble Lords, over decades, it has been well settled by judicial authorities in this blessed land of Nigeria that there exist five methods known to law for establishing ownership of land. These methods briefly comprise the following: (i) Proof of traditional history or evidence (ii) Proof by grant or the production of document of title; (iii) Proof of acts of ownership extending over a sufficient length of time, numerous and positive enough as to warrant the inference that the persons exercising such acts is true owner(s) of the land. (iv) Proof of acts of long possession; and (v) Proof by possession of connected or adjacent land in circumstances rendering it probable that the owner of the such land would in addition, be the owner of the land in dispute.” – Per PETER CHUDI OBIORAH, J.C.A.

 

---

PROOF OF TITLE THROUGH GRANT – ESTABLISHING OWNERSHIP THROUGH DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE

---

“I have read the pleadings of the parties and evidence led by the parties at the trial. It is very apparent that whereas the 1st Respondent anchored his quest to have a declaration of title over the land in dispute on proof by grant by production of document of title, the Appellants anchored their counterclaim to title on proof by traditional history.” – Per PETER CHUDI OBIORAH, J.C.A.

 

---

ADMISSION BY GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS – EFFECT ON LAND DISPUTE

---

“These documents show a clear contractual relationship between the 1st Respondent, as allottee of the land in dispute, and the 2nd Respondent, as grantor of the land. To reinforce the case of the 1st Respondent is the express admission made by the 2nd Respondent who gave evidence through DW3, an Estate Officer in the Lands Administration Office of FCDA, that: ‘Yes, it is correct that the plot in dispute was duly allocated to the Claimant in this case (winning clause Ltd) by the 10th Defendant.'” – Per PETER CHUDI OBIORAH, J.C.A.

 

---

PRIVITY OF CONTRACT – THIRD PARTY CANNOT CHALLENGE VALIDITY OF CONTRACT

---

“This relief is in respect of documents which the Appellants are not parties to. Accordingly, the Appellants have no locus standi to challenge the validity of documents of contract they are strangers to.” – Per PETER CHUDI OBIORAH, J.C.A.

 

---

FORMATION OF VALID CONTRACT – DOCTRINE OF OFFER AND ACCEPTANCE

---

“In effect, the 1st and 2nd Respondents have a meeting of the mind which is sufficient to create a binding contract in line with the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in BILANTE INTL LTD v. N.D.I.C (2011) LPELR-781(SC) at page 7 paras. D-F, per Fabiyi, JSC, as follows: ‘To constitute a binding contract between parties, there must be a meeting of the mind often referred to as consensus ad idem. The mutual consent relates to offer and acceptance. An offer is the expression by a party of readiness to contract on the terms specified by him which if accepted by the offeree gives rise to a binding contract. The offer matures to a contract where the offeree signifies a clear and unequivocal intention to accept the offer.'” – Per PETER CHUDI OBIORAH, J.C.A.

 

---

TRADITIONAL HISTORY AS PROOF OF TITLE – REQUIREMENTS FOR ESTABLISHING ANCESTRAL CLAIM

---

“The law is trite that in a claim for title to land based on traditional history, which is inheritance from ancestors, the claimant must plead the names or histories of the several progenitors and must narrate the genealogical tree from the original founder/owner in generations appurtenant to him.” – Per PETER CHUDI OBIORAH, J.C.A.

 

---

SUBPOENA – CONSEQUENCE OF NON-COMPLIANCE WITH SUBPOENA

---

“The law is trite that where a subpoena to produce a document is not complied with by the non-production of the subpoenaed document, it entitles the party at whose instance the subpoena was issued to lead secondary evidence of the document so demanded and the other party cannot be heard to complain.” – Per PETER CHUDI OBIORAH, J.C.A.

 

---

LOCUS STANDI IN LAND DISPUTES – REQUIREMENT OF LEGITIMATE INTEREST

---

“If there is any deficiency or omission in Exhibit 3 and indeed any document relating to the transaction between the 2nd Respondent, as grantor of the land in dispute, and the 1st Respondent, as the grantee of the land, then it is naturally the 2nd Respondent who should complain. The privity of contract over the land in dispute is between the 1st Respondent and 2nd Respondent. The Appellants, who are strangers to the land transaction and who have no legitimate claim to the land, have no business whatsoever to complain.” – Per PETER CHUDI OBIORAH, J.C.A.

 

---

EXECUTION OF CONTRACTUAL DOCUMENTS – ACCEPTANCE BY PARTIES VALIDATES CONTRACT

---

“Exhibits 3 and 4 are contractual documents executed between the claimant and the 10th defendant. The 10th defendant on whose authority Exhibit 3 was issued, has fully acknowledged same, and has even gone ahead to issue other documents, including Exhibits 5, 9, 10 and IOA to the claimant in furtherance of the contract. Both parties have carried on and related throughout on the footing that the claimant is the grantee of the plot in dispute and have indeed affirmed that stand both in their pleadings and evidence in this case.” – Per PETER CHUDI OBIORAH, J.C.A.

 

---

APPELLATE INTERFERENCE WITH TRIAL COURT’S FINDINGS – WHEN JUSTIFIED

---

“In conclusion, it is my fervent opinion that the learned trial Judge cannot be faulted for his findings and decision in this case. This appeal is a fantasy and lacks merit. It is hereby dismissed.” – Per PETER CHUDI OBIORAH, J.C.A.

 

---

CASES CITED

---

---

STATUTES REFERRED TO

---

1. Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended), Sections 297(2) and 302

2. Federal Capital Territory Act, LFN 2004, Sections 1(3) and 18

3. Evidence Act, Section 98(1)(b) and Section 167

 

---

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT