GALI DALHA V. THE STATE
August 21, 2025SARAT NIG LIMITED & ANOR v. RAILWAY PROPERTY MANAGEMENT LIMITED & ANOR
August 21, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (2025-06) Legalpedia 38796 (SC)
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Wed Jun 4, 2025
Suit Number: SC.CV/295/2021
CORAM
Uwani Musa Abba Aji Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Ibrahim Mohammed Musa Saulawa Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Emmanuel Akomaye Agim Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Chioma Egondu Nwosu-Iheme Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Jamilu Yammama Tukur Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria
PARTIES
H.R.H (NTOE) EDEDEM OKON AYITO (FOR HIMSELF, ETAB AYIP VILLAGE ANDON BEHALF OF THE ENTIRE KASUK II QUA CLAN, CALABAR)
APPELLANTS
1. H.R.M (NDIDEM) PATRICK INOK OQUA
2. NTUFAM FELIX EYO ISO
3. NTUFAM FRANCIS OKON EFFIOM
(FOR THEMSELVES AND ON BEHALF OF THE ENTIRE IKOT ANSA COMMUNITY (NKONIB) OF CALABAR MUNICIPALITY
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
REAL PROPERTY, LAND LAW, TRESPASS TO LAND, TRADITIONAL EVIDENCE, TITLE TO LAND, EVIDENCE, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE, APPEAL, DECLARATION OF TITLE, ACTS OF POSSESSION
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The Appellant, acting on the belief that he was entitled to declaration of title over a certain piece of land, filed an action before the High Court of Cross Rivers State, Calabar Division, seeking declarations that the defendants’ acts of crossing over from and beyond the area of land released to them by a Deed of Release dated 29th September, 2006 into the claimant’s communal swamp known as Etab Ayip Kasuk constituted trespass, along with damages of N500,000,000 and perpetual injunction. The Respondents filed a counter-claim seeking declaration that the Right of Occupancy in the parcel of land measuring approximately 250.535 hectares was vested in them as representatives of Nkonib (Ikot Ansa) Qua Clan, damages of N300,000,000, and perpetual injunction. Following full trial, the trial Judge on 21st February, 2019 held that the Appellant had proved his claims and granted them, while dismissing the Respondents’ counter-claim for abuse of Court process. The Respondents appealed to the Court of Appeal, which on 4th December, 2020, allowed their appeal on grounds that the Appellant failed to prove his entitlement to the land in dispute and that the counter-claim was established. Dissatisfied, the Appellant appealed to the Supreme Court on 12th February, 2021.
HELD
1. The appeal was dismissed.
2. The judgment of the Court of Appeal Calabar Division delivered on 4th December 2020 in Appeal No. CA/C/158/2019 was affirmed.
3. The court held that the Appellant did not prove his claim of ownership over the land he claimed the Respondent trespassed on because he failed to clearly identify the particular land in dispute and failed to prove traditional history as his root of title.
4. The parties were ordered to bear their respective costs.
ISSUES
1. Whether the Court of Appeal was correct when it set aside the judgment of the trial Court on the ground that the appellant failed to show by way of a plan, the entire land of Etab Ayip Village which should include the area released to the respondents and indicating the area allegedly encroached on by the respondents without the lower Court adverting its mind on or having any recourse to the composite plan tendered and admitted as Exhibit 15?
2. Whether the lower Court’s decision to set aside the judgment of the trial Court based on its misconception and treatment of the area of land measuring approximately 240.535 hectares comprising of PARCEL “A” with 146.5 hectares and PARCEL “B” 104.035 particularly delineated on survey plan No. CR/C.928 which land was acquired by the government and released to the respondents by a Deed of Release dated 29th Sept., 2006 as the land in dispute was correct and did not occasion a miscarriage of justice?
3. Whether the lower Court was right to hold that the trial Court cannot fall back on the appellant’s acts of exclusive possession and ownership to prove his claim of trespass and injunction against the respondents?
4. Whether the Court of Appeal was right when it set aside the order of the trial Court striking out the respondents’ counter-claim on the ground that the claims of the appellant as claimant in suit no. HC/128/2016 was dismissed and same having been dismissed, the said appellant’s claim in suit No HC/128/2016, has no potency of dislodging the respondents’ counterclaim, notwithstanding the fact that there was a valid and pending appeal at that material time as established by exhibits 66 and 67 challenging the judgment in Suit No. HC/128/ 2016?
5. Whether on a proper consideration of the state of the evidence before the lower Court vis-a-vis the palpable inconsistencies and changes in the case made by the respondents at every stage of this matter, the lower Court was right in agreeing with the Respondents that they have indeed made a better case to warrant the grant of judgment in their favour?
RATIONES DECIDENDI
DEFINITION OF TRESPASS TO LAND – WRONGFUL ENTRY
Trespass to land is a wrongful entry into the land in actual or constructive possession of another, Olaniyan v. Fatoki (2003) 13 NWLR (Pt. 837) 273, 286. In effect, a person who cannot prove that he is in possession cannot sue in trespass, Akibu v. Azeez (2003) 5 NWLR (Pt. 814) 643, 670. That must be so for trespass is rooted or based on exclusive possession or right to possession, Unakamba v. Nze (2002) 28 W.R.N. 53, 64.– Per JAMILU YAMMAMA TUKUR, J.S.C.
TRESPASS WHEN TITLE IS PUT IN ISSUE – REQUIREMENT FOR BETTER TITLE
The law is however settled, as rightly stated by the Court of Appeal, that where the Defendant to a suit for trespass alleges ownership of the land subject matter of the trespass, the title to the land has been put in issue and the person suing for trespass must show a better title as against that of the Defendant, which means that the Claimant must therefore prove title to the land and the rules of proving title would apply. – Per JAMILU YAMMAMA TUKUR, J.S.C.
SUPERIOR TITLE REQUIREMENT – BURDEN ON PLAINTIFF
The position is that unless and until the plaintiff shows a title superior to the defendants, the defendant must continue to keep possession of the land even if he is a trespasser. In Pius Amakor v. Benedict Obiefuna (supra) this Court, per Fatayi-Williams, JSC (as he then was) observed: ‘Generally speaking, as a claim for trespass to land is rooted in exclusive possession, all a plaintiff needs to prove is that he has exclusive possession, or he has the right to such possession, of the land in dispute. But once a defendant claims to be the owner of the land in dispute, title to it is put in issue, and in order to succeed, the plaintiff must show a better title than that of the defendant.’– Per JAMILU YAMMAMA TUKUR, J.S.C.
BURDEN OF PROOF IN TITLE CLAIMS – STRENGTH OF OWN CASE
The position of the law is trite that in an action for a declaration of title to land, the onus is on the plaintiff to show, by credible evidence that he is entitled to the declaration as the Court would always grant ownership to the party with the better title. – Per JAMILU YAMMAMA TUKUR, J.S.C.
IDENTIFICATION OF LAND IN DISPUTE – CONDITION PRECEDENT
It is basic that where a plaintiff claims a declaration of title to land and fails to give the exact extent and identity of the land he is claiming his action should be dismissed. This is a condition precedent sine qua non to the success of the claim. – Per JAMILU YAMMAMA TUKUR, J.S.C.
REQUIREMENTS FOR TRADITIONAL EVIDENCE – THREE ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS
To establish traditional evidence of title by conclusive evidence, the plaintiff must plead and prove such facts as:- (a) Who founded the land in dispute, (b) How they founded the land, and (c) The particulars of the intervening owners through whom they claim. – Per JAMILU YAMMAMA TUKUR, J.S.C.
ACTS OF POSSESSION WHEN TRADITIONAL EVIDENCE FAILS – LIMITATION
A party seeking a declaration of title to land is not bound to plead and prove more than one root of title to succeed but he is entitled to rely on more than one root of title. However, where as in this case, he relies on traditional history, and in addition acts of ownership and long possession predicated on the traditional history as pleaded, he is not entitled to a declaration of title based on the evidence of acts of ownership and long possession where the evidence of traditional history is unavailing.– Per JAMILU YAMMAMA TUKUR, J.S.C.
WHEN ACTS OF POSSESSION BECOME RELEVANT – CONFLICTING HISTORIES
However, ‘such evidence of acts of ownership and long possession becomes relevant where the traditional histories given by both sides though plausible, are in conflict. In such a situation, it will not be open to the Court simply to prefer one side to the other. To determine which of the histories is more probable the Courts have called in aid the principle enunciated in the celebrated case of Kojo II v. Bonsie (1957) 1 WLR 1223 which is to the effect that the preference of one history to the other as being more probable would depend on recent acts of ownership and possession shown by the parties that the Court would need to consider to make up its mind.– Per JAMILU YAMMAMA TUKUR, J.S.C.
FAILURE TO PROVE TRADITIONAL HISTORY – CONSEQUENCE
On the whole, the respondent has failed to prove his root of title on traditional history earlier pleaded and cannot fall back to claim title to the land in dispute on the basis of act of ownership and long possession.– Per JAMILU YAMMAMA TUKUR, J.S.C.
BETTER TITLE PRINCIPLE – COMPARATIVE ASSESSMENT
Where two parties claim title to land, as in the instant case, the law ascribes title to the party with the better title and the claim is decided on the balance of probabilities.– Per UWANI MUSA ABBA AJI, J.S.C.
EFFECT OF GOVERNMENT ACQUISITION – EXTINGUISHMENT OF RIGHTS
The acquisitions of the Land aforesaid had obliterated whatever right that might have existed regarding those areas, and the subsequent release of the land vide Exhibits 8, 9 and 21, to the Respondents by the Federal Government of Nigeria through the Nigeria Army, thereby creating an entirely new root of title in the Respondents.– Per IBRAHIM MOHAMMED MUSA SAULAWA, J.S.C.
LEGAL EFFECT OF LAND ACQUISITION – STATE OWNERSHIP
Thus, by virtue of the provisions of Sections 3(2) & 4 of the PUBLIC LANDS ACQUISITION ACT, CAP. 167 LANDS OF THE FEDERATION OF NIGERIA, 1958 under pursuant to which the land was acquired, and Section 28(7) of the LAND USE ACT, CAP. L5 LAWS OF THE FEDERATION OF NIGERIA, 2004, the land in dispute must have become a state land from the very date of acquisition and subsequent payment of compensation. Thus, the appellant was devoid of any right whatsoever to claim or reclaim a land that had been properly acquired and for which compensation had been duly paid. – Per IBRAHIM MOHAMMED MUSA SAULAWA, J.S.C.
ACTS BECOMING TRESPASS WHEN TITLE UNPROVED – LEGAL PRINCIPLE
Thus, whereas the pleaded root of title is not proved (as in the instant case), acts of ownership of land in dispute would turn to acts of trespass.– Per IBRAHIM MOHAMMED MUSA SAULAWA, J.S.C.
CASES CITED
STATUTES REFERRED TO
1. Public Lands Acquisition Act, Cap. 167 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 1958
2. Land Use Act, Cap. L5 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004
3. Evidence Act, 2011
