MUSTAPHA IBRAHIM V THE STATE
March 30, 2025NIGERIAN AGIP OIL COMPANY LTD v. HRH INSPECTOR PHILIP OSI & ORS.
March 30, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (2020) Legalpedia (CA) 35011
In the Court of Appeal
HOLDEN AT GOMBO
Mon Nov 9, 2020
Suit Number: CA/G/491/2018
CORAM
PARTIES
HAJJA ZARA GONIRAM
MR. ANTHONY SUNDAY
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The Appellant commenced an action at the High Court of Justice, Borno State vide a Writ of summons on March 24, 2004 wherein she claimed title to a piece of land measuring 100x50ft lying and situate at Umarari Ward, Maiduguri. By her Statement of claim, she stated that she came into possession of the land when she purchased same from one Bulama Mala Kundili at the cost of N800.00 in 1984. She tendered a cash receipt, Exhibit A, in proof of her title. The contents of Exhibit A were in Hausa language and no English translation of same was placed before the trial Court. On the other hand, the Respondent contended that he acquired the land in dispute from Mrs. Jude Manbaka, and had been in occupation and possession since his purchase. He also tendered a receipt of payment of purchase price and its English translation in proof thereof. In proof of her claim, the Appellant called one witness and testified herself. As afore-stated, she tendered Exhibit A, a receipt of purchase, as her evidence of title. In his defence, the Respondent testified, called one other witness and tendered two Exhibits. At the close of trial, the learned trial Judge delivered Judgement wherein he dismissed the Appellant’s claim. Aggrieved by this decision, the Appellant appealed to this Court vide her Notice of Appeal wherein she sought an order allowing the appeal by setting aside the judgment of the trial court and an order for a retrial of the case before another judge.
HELD
Appeal Dismissed
ISSUES
Whether the trial Court was right to raise an issue suo motu with regard to Exhibit A, [a] cash receipt, tendered by the Appellant, without affording [an] opportunity for the parties to address on it before delivering its Judgement. Whether the Appellant, by her evidence at the trial Court, established and proved her case as required by law
RATIONES DECIDENDI
TITLE TO LAND – DUTY ON A CLAIMANT TO PROVE TITLE TO LAND
“From the pleadings of the parties, issues were duly joined. While as submitted by the Appellant, it may be technically right to say that the Appellant did not expressly claim title to the land in question in the reliefs set out in her statement of claim, title was decidedly put in issue by the pleadings of the parties. Therefore, in order for the Appellant to prove her entitlement to a declaration of possession and occupation of the land in dispute on the strength of her possession and occupation of the land as claimed, as opposed to the adverse claim of the Respondent who also contended that he owned the land having bought same and was also in possession, the Appellant was obliged to prove her title which entitled her to such possession and occupation of the land. This is settled law.
In the case of Regd. Trustees of the Apostolic Faith Mission V James (1987) LPELR-2946(SC) 35-36, E-A, the Supreme Court per Oputa, JSC held as follows –
“Since the only issue in this case is – as between the Plaintiffs and the Defendants, who has a better title? – it is necessary to investigate the parties respective roots of title. In any event, since the Plaintiffs claimed damages for trespass and perpetual injunction, they have put their title in issue for their claim to postulate that they are either the owners of the land in dispute or that before the trespass complained of, they were in exclusive possession of the land. The onus of proof was also definitely on the Plaintiffs.” (Emphasis supplied)
TITLE TO LAND – WAYS OF PROVING TITLE TO LAND
Therefore, by virtue of the authority of Idundun V Okumagba (1976) 10 SC 277, the locus classicus on the issue, title to land can be proved in one or more of the following five methods:
Proof by traditional history or traditional evidence of the history of the land, which includes mode of acquisition of same, for instance, by deforestation of the virgin forest by the first settler, conquest of the original owners through acts of war, gifts, e.t.c.
Proof by grant or the production of documents of title to the land.
Proof by acts of ownership extending over a sufficient length of time numerous and positive enough to warrant the inference that the persons exercising such acts are the true owners of the land.
Proof by acts of long possession.
Proof by possession of connected or adjacent land in circumstances rendering it probable that the owner of such land would, in addition, be the owner of the land in dispute.
See also Iseogbekun V Adelakun (2012) LPELR-15516(SC) 28-29, G-D, per Mukhtar, JSC; Dakolo V Rewane-Dakolo (2011) LPELR-915(SC) 23-24, E-D, per Rhodes-Vivour, JSC; Odunze V Nwosu (2007) LPELR-2252(SC) 67, C-F, per Onnoghen, JSC.
Therefore, in the instant case, the Appellant having put her title in issue by also claiming trespass and injunction, was obliged to prove her title to the land by one of the five ways enumerated above.
PROOF OF TITLE TO LAND – QUESTIONS THE COURT WOULD INQUIRE INTO WHEN PROOF OF TITLE TO LAND IS BY PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS OF TITLE
“Indeed, one of the recognized ways of proof of title is by the production of documents of title or a valid instrument of grant. The production and reliance upon such a document of title or instrument of grant inevitably carries with it the need for the Court to inquire into some or all of a number of questions, including:
Whether the document is genuine and valid;
Whether it has been duly executed, stamped and registered;
Whether the grantor had the authority and capacity to make the grant; and
Whether it has the effect claimed by the holder of the document or instrument.
See Romaine V Romaine (1992) LPELR-2953(SC) 15-16, E-B, per Nnaemeka-Agu, JSC; Nwadike V Ibekwe (1987) 4 NWLR (Pt. 67) 718”.
SALE OF LAND – IMPLICATION OF A PURCHASE RECEIPT IN AN AGREEMENT FOR SALE OF LAND
“The law is that a purchase receipt is evidence that there was an agreement for the sale of land, and that consideration for the sale was paid by the purchaser. This endows upon the purchaser an equitable interest in the land, thereby giving him an equitable title. Thus generally, while a purchase receipt does not convey title or legal estate in a landed property to the purchaser, it can be tendered as proof of actual purchase or exchange of money between the vendor of the land and the purchaser. Thus, as an unregistered document which falls within Section 2 of the various Land Registration Laws, it can be admitted in evidence as a receipt or evidence of money transaction. Such a document cannot be used to prove title. However, where it is coupled with possession in appropriate cases, it may give rise to an equitable interest in the land. See Ishola V Oluwalogun (2013) LPELR-22206(CA) 48, per Tsammani, JCA; Enadeghe V Eweka (2014) LPELR-24479(CA) 9, D-E, per Ogunwumiju, JCA; Ero V Tinubu (2012) LPELR-7869(CA) 25-26, D-B, per Mshelia, JCA; Ayorinde V Fayoyin (2001) FWLR (Pt. 75) 483”.
EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE – LIMITS ON THE POWERS OF AN APPELLATE COURT TO INTERFERE WITH EVIDENCE PROPERLY EVALUATED BY A TRIAL COURT
“It is the bounden duty of a Court of trial to evaluate and ascribe probative value to the evidence adduced before it in coming to a decision, one way or the other, based on it. This assignment is an exclusive preserve of the trial Court. Thus, where a trial Court has unquestionably evaluated the evidence and properly appraised the facts of the case, an appellate Court would not interfere to substitute its views for the views of the trial Court – Okoye V Obiaso (2010) LPELR-2507(SC) 15, F-G, per Onnoghen, JSC; Anyegwu V Onuche (2009) LPELR-521(SC) 14-15, C-A, per Muhammad, JSC; Ayeni V State (2016) LPELR-40105(SC) 31, C-E, per Kekere-Ekun, JSC”.
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE – DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE ADMISSIBILITY OF DOCUMENTS AND THE PROBATIVE VALUE TO BE PLACED ON THEM
“There is certainly a dichotomy between the admissibility of documents and the probative value to be placed on them. While admissibility is based on relevance, probative value depends not only on relevance, but also on proof. Evidence has probative value only if it tends to prove an issue – ACN V Lamido (2012) LPELR-7825(SC) 37-38, B-A, per Fabiyi, JSC”.
PROOF – WHETHER A CLAIMANT CAN SUCCEED ON THE WEAKNESS OF THE DEFENCE
“As rightfully found by the learned trial Judge (at page 53 of the Record), by Sections 135 and 137 of the Evidence Act, 2011, in civil cases, the claimant succeeds on the strength of her case and so, cannot rely on any weakness in the defence. The same also applies to cases involving land disputes. It is well established that a person seeking title to land bears the enormous duty in law to adduce credible and admissible evidence in establishing such title. The plaintiff must succeed on the strength of her own case, except where the evidence adduced by the defendant strongly supports her case – Ajiboye V Ishola (2006) LPELR-301(SC) 28, A-B, per Onnoghen, JSC; Ogbogwu V Aigbo (2013) LPELR-21196(CA) 24, B-D, per Mshelia, JCA.
TITLE TO LAND – PRIMARY DUTY OF A CLAIMANT IN A CLAIM FOR TITLE TO LAND
“It is also an age-long principle that any person claiming an interest in land must prove the exact location of the land and the precise area to which his claim relates. This is the foremost and fundamental duty on a claimant in a land dispute. In other words, the first duty of a claimant in a claim for title to land is to show clearly the area of land to which his claim relates, as no Court will grant a declaration to an unidentified area. Title can only be granted in respect of a piece of land with definite, precise and accurate boundaries.
The Supreme Court in the case of Tukuru V Sabi (2013) Vol. 222 LRCN (Pt. 1) 87, A-K, per Onnoghen, JSC, stated as follows:
“It is settled law that the first duty of a Claimant of title to land is to show clearly the area of land which his claim relates, the exact boundaries, its extent, etc. The above requirement is not satisfied by merely tendering the Survey Plan of the land in dispute without adducing oral evidence as to the features on the land, the boundary neigbours, etc, particularly where the defence denies the identity of the land in dispute, as in the instant case. Apart from the requirement of certainty of the land claimed, it is also the duty of the plaintiff in a declaration of title suit to succeed on the strength of his case as he is not allowed to rely on the weakness of the defence except where the defence supports that of the plaintiff.” (Emphasis supplied)
See also Kolo V Lawan (2018) LPELR-44378(SC) 12, D-E, per Ariwoola, JSC; Min. of Lands & Housing, Bauchi State V Tirwun (2017) LPELR-43314(CA) 19-20, C-B, per Abiru, JCA; Amadi V Nwosu (2014) LPELR-24428(CA) 83-84. F-D, per Agube, JCA; Ilona V Idakwo (2003) 18 NWLR (Pt. 830) 53; Odofin V Oni (2001) 3 NWLR (Pt. 701) 488; Adesanya V Aderonmu (2000) 9 NWLR (Pt. 672) 370.
DECLARATION OF TITLE TO LAND – DUTY OF A PARTY IN A CLAIM OF DECLARATION OF TITLE TO LAND TO PROVE THE IDENTITY OF THE LAND WITH DEFINITIVE CERTAINTY
“It is instructive that in paragraph 10 of the Respondent’s Amended Statement of defence, the Respondent denies knowledge of the land claimed by the Appellant when he states:
“The defendant has never trespassed and is not trespassing into and upon the plaintiff’s land which the defendant does not know but the defendant has always been in possession of his land.” (Emphasis supplied)
By this averment, the Respondent stated that he was not sure of the land that was being claimed by the Appellant. However, that he has always been in possession of his own land. By this averment, it became even more imperative for the Appellant to prove with certainty the identity of the land to which she sought a declaration for possession and occupation. This was the finding of the Supreme Court in Nwokorobia V Nwogu (2009) LPELR-2127(SC) 16, E-F, per Mukhtar, JSC as follows:
“The cardinal principle of law is that in a claim of declaration of title to land, a party must prove the identity of the land he is claiming with definitive certainty. Proof can be by evidence of the boundary men of the land in dispute, and a plan.” (Emphasis supplied)
Once again, this evaluation of the evidence placed before the lower Court by the learned trial Judge does not amount to raising an issue suo motu as has been contended by the Appellant”.
TITLE TO LAND – EFFECT OF WHERE A PARTY FAILS TO ADDUCE CREDIBLE EVIDENCE IN PROOF OF HER CLAIM
“As has been over-flogged in my findings above, the Appellant in a case of this nature, must succeed on the strength of her case and not rely on the weakness, if any, of the defence. Where the Appellant has failed to adduce any credible evidence in proof of her claim, it is unwarranted and a wasted venture to conjure up the imaginary scale, as there is nothing to weigh or place on the Plaintiff’s side of the scale.
DOCUMENT – STATUS OF A PURCHASE RECEIPT WRITTEN IN A LANGUAGE OTHER THAN ENGLISH
“This appeal is mostly hinged on the purchase receipt exhibit A tendered by the Appellant. This receipt was written in Hausa Language. The Apex court in treating this issue agreed that the official language of the Superior Courts of record in Nigeria is English. In Ojengbede vs Esan (2001) 18 NWLR pt 746 pg 271 Iguh JSC opined that
“If documents written in any language other than English are to be tendered properly or used in evidence they must be only translated into English Language and to be tendered and properly used in evidence, they must be only translated into English either by a competent witness called by the party to the proceedings who needs them to prove his case or by the official interpreter of the court.
A court cannot on its own engage in the translation and in interpretation of a document written in a language other than English. The court is precluded from performing the role of a witness and the arbiter at the same time in the same proceedings.
DOCUMENT -WHETHER COURT CAN ADD PROBATIVE VALUE TO A DOCUMENT NOT WRITTEN IN THE LANGUAGE OF THE COURT
“The conclusion reached by his Lordship that the Appellant did not prove her case accords with the record of appeal before the Court. Of the five methods by which title to land can be proved, the Appellant opted for production of title document. In this case, the Appellant’s title document is the agreement for the sale of the land to her which was admitted in evidence as Exhibit “A”. It is however in Hausa language, and as such the lower Court rightly declined to accord probative value to it since it is not in the language of the Court. See the case of Lawson vs. Afani Const. Co. Ltd (2002) 2 NWLR (Pt. 752) 285”.
CASES CITED
Not Available
STATUTES REFERRED TO
Evidence Act, 2011|
