MATION FELIX V. THE STATE
February 27, 2025MRS. VERO EDOH V. MR. PATRICK OMOROGIEVA & ANOR
February 27, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (2025-01) Legalpedia 34302 (CA)
In the Court of Appeal
HOLDEN AT YOLA
Wed Jan 22, 2025
Suit Number: CA/YL/141/2022
CORAM
PARTIES
APPELLANTS
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, LAND LAW, EVIDENCE, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE, JUDICIAL PROCESS, TRADITIONAL HISTORY, TRESPASS
SUMMARY OF FACTS
This appeal arises from the judgment of the High Court of Taraba State sitting in Jalingo in Suit No. TRSJ/93/2017 delivered on February 9, 2021, wherein the trial Court entered judgment in favor of the Respondent (Gregory Nathan) who sued as plaintiff against the Appellant (Habila Bayo) as defendant, for a declaration of title and ancillary reliefs over a disputed piece of land.
The Respondent, suing for himself and members of his Kajan family, claimed that the disputed land was part of a larger piece of land inherited from the progenitor of his family, named Yasaba. According to the Respondent, Yasaba founded the land by deforestation, settled on it, and had his children on the land. After Yasaba’s death, his descendants, including the Respondent and his family members, continued to live on and farm the land. The Appellant allegedly trespassed into a small portion of the land in 2015 and 2017, which was resisted by the Respondent.
In his defense, the Appellant claimed that the disputed land belonged to his father Bayo, who had inherited it from his father Achau, who himself inherited it from a long line of forebears, starting from their ancestor Badon who had founded the land by deforestation, lived and farmed on it before relocating to Angwan Abuja but still continued to visit and farm on the land.
The trial Court, in its judgment on February 9, 2021, found for the Respondent and granted reliefs 1 to 3 as claimed (declaration of title, declaration that the Appellant is a trespasser, and an order restraining the Appellant from interfering with the land), but refused the other reliefs for damages and costs. Dissatisfied with the judgment, the Appellant filed a Notice of Appeal on March 11, 2022, with 9 grounds of appeal.
HELD
The appeal was dismissed.
The Court of Appeal held that the judgment of the trial Court was not a nullity despite being delivered outside the 90-day period prescribed by Section 294(1) of the Constitution, as the Appellant failed to demonstrate that he suffered any miscarriage of justice as a result of the delay.
The Court held that the identity of the land in dispute was not in contention as both parties were ad idem about the land they were fighting over, and even if proof of identity was required, the Respondent had adequately described the land in his pleadings.
The Court found that the trial Court correctly applied the principle in Kojo II v Bonsie by testing the competing traditional histories against contemporary acts of ownership and possession to determine which was more probable.
The Court held that the trial Court did not err in placing an evidential burden on the Appellant to prove his assertion of ownership as a defense to the claim of trespass.
The judgment of the lower Court in Suit No: TRSJ/17/2021 was affirmed.
No order was made as to costs.
ISSUES
Whether in the face of the provisions of Section 294(1) & (5) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended), the judgment of the trial Court is not a nullity?
Whether the issue of identity of the land in dispute did not arise in this matter before the trial Court, and if the answer is in the positive, then whether the Respondent who is the claimant before the Court proved same as required by law before an order of declaration of title to the said land was granted in favor by the trial Court?
Whether having regard to the evidence adduced by the parties before the trial Court on the issues of traditional history and acts of possession, the trial Court did not err in law when it granted reliefs No. 1-3 of the Respondent, holding that the traditional evidence and acts of possession of the Respondent are more probable than those of the Appellant?
Whether the principle of law enunciated in the case of Kojo II v Bonsie (2001) 86 LCRN1492 at 1501, by Lord Denning is applicable in this matter, and if the answer is yes, then did the trial Court actually apply same in the matter in arriving at a decision by granting title to the land in dispute to the Respondent?
Whether the learned trial judge was not in error when he placed the burden of proof of title to land in dispute on the Appellant instead of the Respondent who is the claimant of the land?
RATIONES DECIDENDI
CASES CITED
STATUTES REFERRED TO
Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended)
Evidence Act 2011
Nigerian Police Regulations
