CHIEF VICTOR UMEH & ANOR V PROF. MAURICE IWU (CHAIRMAN INEC) & 3 ORS
May 30, 2025R. TAIWO OLORUNTOBA-OJU & ORS V PROFESSOR P. A. DOPAMU & ORS
May 30, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (2008) Legalpedia (SC) 11106
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Fri Feb 22, 2008
Suit Number: SC. 267/2002
CORAM
ELIAS CHIEF JUSTICE, NIGERIA
DAHIRU MUSDAPHER JUSTICE ,SUPREME COURT
PARTIES
1.GRACE MADU APPELLANTS
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The appellant claimed for a declaration that the plaintiff is the owner/allottee of the plot covered by Certificate of Occupancy No. FCT/ABU/AN.2685, declaration that the plaintiff is entitled to immediate possession of the said Certificate of Occupancy, an order of perpetual injunction restraining the defendant from trespassing into the said plot, and N5million general damages for trespass. Alternatively: N5million general damages for waste. ?
HELD
APPEAL ALLOWED
ISSUES
Whether the Court of Appeal was right to hold that the appellant failed to prove ownership of Plot No. 327 covered by Certificate of Occupancy No FCT/ABU/AN/2685Whether in the circumstances of this case the respondent fully made out a case for resulting trust
RATIONES DECIDENDI
EFFECT OF GRANT OF CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY
“The Certificate also raises the presumption that at the time it was issued, there was not in existence a customary owner whose title has not been revoked. It should however be noted that the presumption is rebuttable because if it is proved by evidence that another person had a better title to the land before the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy in which case the Certificate of Occupancy will stand revoked by the court” PER ADEREMI, J.S.C
THE SUPREME COURT WILL INTERFERE WITH FINDINGS OF FACT NOT BASED ON FACTS ESTABLISHED ON RECORD
“It is well established that the Supreme Court will only interfere with the findings of fact by a Court of Appeal where it appears not to be based on facts established on the record” PER ONU, J.SC
WHAT A HOLDER OF A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY NEEDS TO SHOW FOR THE CERTIFICATE TO BE VALID
“From the overwhelming evidence adduced by the Appellant, she had clearly traced her root of title to the Hon. Minister of the FCT who has the authority to allocate such lands. The onus remains heavily on the Respondent to show that he had an earlier legal title over the land before the certificate was issued in favour of the Appellant but this the Respondent failed woefully to do. Therefore, the Court of Appeal, with all due respect, was in error when it held that the Appellant “only adduced evidence to show that the Certificate of Occupancy was issued in her name nothing more.” In this case the Appellant need not show more than this. See Ogbuokwelu v. Umeanafunkwa” PER ONU, J.SC
EFFECT OF GRANT OF CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY
“The settled law in grant of C of O is that once a person is granted a C of O over a parcel of land, he is entitled to hold that parcel of land to the exclusion of any other person unless the C of O is for good reasons, revoked by the same authority that granted it or the grant is found to be void and set aside by a court of law” PER MUHAMMED, JSC
ESSENTIALS IN A CLAIM FOR DECLARATION OF TITLE TO LAND
“In a claim for declaration of title to land, the production of documents of title alone is not sufficient to discharge the onus on the Plaintiff to prove the title he claims; he must go further to trace his root of title to one whose ownership of the land has been established.” PER ONU, J.SC
CASES CITED
Osazuwa v. OjoShogo v. AdebayoEzeanan v. AttaGanikon v. Ugochukwu Chem. Ind. Ltd
STATUTES REFERRED TO
None.
