CORAM

---

Biobele Abraham Georgewill Justice of the Court of Appeal

Binta Fatima Zubairu Justice of the Court of Appeal

Fadawu Umaru Justice of the Court of Appeal

---

PARTIES

---

1. HAMWO MINING AND CONSTRUCTION NIG. LTD

2. CHINA HARBOR NIGERIA LIMITED

3. OBA (DR) SIKIRU KAYODE ADETONA (AWUJALE OF IJEBU LAND)

APPELLANTS 

---

1. GEO RESOURCES LIMITED

2. OBA (ENGR.) MICHEAL OLUSEGUN ADESINA (OLOWU OF OWU- IJEBU)

RESPONDENTS 

---

AREA(S) OF LAW

---

PROPERTY LAW, LAND LAW, EVIDENCE, LEASE AGREEMENTS, TRESPASS, TITLE TO LAND, REGISTRATION OF INSTRUMENTS, SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE, INJUNCTIONS, DAMAGES, APPEAL, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

 

---

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The 1st Respondent (Geo Resources Limited) sued the 2nd Respondent (Oba Micheal Olusegun Adesina, Olowu of Owu-Ijebu) and the Appellants seeking specific performance of a 25-year lease agreement dated August 8, 1997, perpetual injunction against trespass, and N10 billion damages. The 1st Respondent claimed it obtained a lease from the predecessor of the 2nd Respondent for mining purposes at Erilota, Owu-Ijebu, Ogun State, and was put in undisturbed possession until 2007 when the 1st and 2nd Appellants allegedly trespassed.

The 1st and 2nd Appellants (Hamwo Mining and Construction Nig. Ltd and China Harbor Nigeria Limited) were mining companies who claimed they were granted permission by the 3rd Appellant (Oba Sikiru Kayode Adetona, Awujale of Ijebu Land) to mine on the disputed land. The 3rd Appellant was later joined as a party and claimed ownership of the entire land as part of the Ijebu Forest Reserve, asserting that the Owu-Ijebu people were refugees who had no ownership rights over the land.

At trial, the 1st Respondent tendered the lease agreement as Exhibit CO1, which the Appellants objected to as an unregistered instrument affecting land. The trial court admitted the document, reasoning it was not tendered to establish title but equitable interest and payment of money. The trial court granted all the 1st Respondent’s claims, finding that it had proved its case through acts of long possession and that the lease agreement was valid.

The Appellants appealed on thirteen grounds, primarily challenging the admissibility of the unregistered lease agreement and arguing that title to the land was put in issue by the competing claims of ownership between the 2nd Respondent and the 3rd Appellant.

 

---

HELD

---

1. The appeal was allowed.

2. The Court of Appeal held that Exhibit CO1 (the unregistered lease agreement) was inadmissible in evidence as it was a registrable instrument affecting land that had not been registered as required by the Land Instrument Registration Law of Ogun State.

3. The court found that title to the land was put in issue by the pleadings and evidence, contrary to the trial court’s finding.

4. The court held that the 3rd Appellant proved a better title to the disputed land through credible evidence of traditional history.

5. The judgment of the High Court of Ogun State delivered on February 24, 2022, was set aside.

6. The claims of the 1st Respondent were dismissed for lacking merit.

7. No order as to costs was made.

 

---

ISSUES

---

1. Whether the lower Court was right to have admitted in evidence Exhibit CO1 when its admissibility was challenged by the Appellants during trial, and subsequently refused the invitation to expunge same from its record when urged by the Appellants in their written address on the ground of its non-compliance with the Land Instrument Registration Law of Ogun State.

2. Whether in view of the totality of the evidence before the lower Court, it was right when it held that title to the land in dispute was not put in issue in view of the fact that the 3rd Appellant who asserted ownership of the land failed to file a Counter-Claim upon which issues could have been properly joined.

3. Whether the lower Court was right when it confined itself to the Claimant/1st Respondent’s claims for specific performance against the 2nd Respondent and trespass against the 1st and 2nd Appellants which were the issues properly submitted before it for determination.

 

---

RATIONES DECIDENDI

---

ADMISSIBILITY OF UNREGISTERED DOCUMENTS – REGISTRABLE INSTRUMENTS AFFECTING LAND

---

On the extant position of the law therefore, Exhibit CO1, a document pleaded and relied upon by the 1st Respondent in support of a 25 years lease is a document affecting land and thus, a registrable instrument and the failure to register it as required by law renders it inadmissible in evidence, contrary to the perverse decision of the lower Court, and which decision is liable to be set aside without much ado. – Per BIOBELE ABRAHAM GEORGEWILL, J.C.A.

 

---

EVOLUTION OF LAW ON UNREGISTERED DOCUMENTS – SUPREME COURT POSITION

---

Interestingly, Moses Benjamin & Ors v. Adokiye Kalio & Anor (2018) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1641) 38, decided in way back 2018, which seemed to have enjoyed superior attention and obedience from all Courts lower in hierarchy to the Apex Court in Nigeria until 2024, suffered a jurisprudential setback when the Apex Court, with its infallibility intact, moved away from the position of the law in Moses Benjamin & Ors v. Adokiye Kalio & Anor (2018) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1641) 38. – Per BIOBELE ABRAHAM GEORGEWILL, J.C.A.

 

---

POWER OF COURT TO EXPUNGE INADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE

---

My lords, in the course of proceedings in a Court, a piece of evidence may, by oversight or inadvertence, be admitted in evidence but if that Court later discovers, at the time of writing its judgment, that that particular piece of evidence is at all event inadmissible in law, then it is entitled to so hold and to reject and expunge such evidence without much ado.- Per BIOBELE ABRAHAM GEORGEWILL, J.C.A.

 

---

PURPOSE OF DOCUMENT IN PLEADINGS – DETERMINING ADMISSIBILITY

---

I have had a holistic review of the entirety of the averments in the 2nd Further Amended Statement of Claim, and I am unable to find where the 1st Respondent pleaded the Deed of Lease as evidence of transaction and or payment of rent and royalties. Paragraph 9 of the 2nd Further Amended Statement of Claim was emphatic on the purpose for which Exhibit CO 1 was pleaded. It was pleaded for the purpose of establishing the existence of a lease of 25 years in respect of which the 1st Respondent sought specific performance. – Per BIOBELE ABRAHAM GEORGEWILL, J.C.A.

 

---

LOCUS STANDI TO OBJECT TO DOCUMENT ADMISSIBILITY

---

The Appellants being parties to the 1st Respondent’s Suit before the lower Court., as 2nd – 4th Defendants, were at liberty to object to the admissibility of any documents, including Exhibit CO1, at the trial before the lower Court, and there in no requirement, and they need not be, parties to the said document before they could object to its admissibility in a trial in a suit involving them as parties. – Per BIOBELE ABRAHAM GEORGEWILL, J.C.A.

 

---

WHEN TITLE IS PUT IN ISSUE – TRESPASS CLAIMS

---

My lords, in law, ordinarily or should I say generally, where claim for trespass is coupled with a claim for injunction, the title of the parties to the land in dispute is automatically put in issue. Thus, where in an action for trespass, the Defendant claims ownership of the land, title is put in issue and the Claimant has the onus of proving that he has a better title than the Defendant in order to succeed in his claim. – Per BIOBELE ABRAHAM GEORGEWILL, J.C.A.

 

---

TRESPASS AND POSSESSION – REQUIREMENTS FOR SUCCESS

---

Now, the long – accepted position of the law, when it comes to the tort of trespass to land, is that trespass is actionable at the suit of the person in possession of the land, therefore, even the slightest interference with the slightest, but exclusive, possession would enable an action for trespass if the Defendant cannot show a better title. – Per BIOBELE ABRAHAM GEORGEWILL, J.C.A.

 

---

TITLE PUT IN ISSUE WITHOUT COUNTER-CLAIM

---

In law title to land can be put in issue in a suit by pleading expressly that the Claimant’s claim is based on his title or impliedly by claiming damages for trespass and injunction. So, also would title be put in issue where a Defendant claims title to the land in a Claimant’s suit for trespass and injunction only notwithstanding not Counter – Claiming for title to the land in dispute.- Per BIOBELE ABRAHAM GEORGEWILL, J.C.A.

 

---

BURDEN OF PROOF IN TITLE DISPUTES

---

Now, it is settled law that once in a claim the title to land is put in issue, then in order to succeed, the Claimant must prove either his title or his predecessor in title’s title to the land in dispute by credible evidence by one or more of the five methods of proof of title to land, namely: a. Evidence of traditional history of title; b. Production of genuine and valid documents of title; c. Numerous acts of ownership; d. Acts of possession over a long period of time, or, e. Acts of possession of adjacent land long enough to make it probable that the owner of the adjacent land is also the owner of the land in dispute.- Per BIOBELE ABRAHAM GEORGEWILL, J.C.A.

 

---

NEMO DAT QUOD NON HABET PRINCIPLE

---

My lords, both the 1st Respondent, and the 2nd Respondent, having been found to have failed to prove any title to the land in dispute, the 2nd Respondent would in law lack the capacity to grant a lease over the land in dispute over which he possesses no title to the 1st Respondent. The law is ‘nemo dat quod non habet’ – one cannot give to another what he does not have! – Per BIOBELE ABRAHAM GEORGEWILL, J.C.A.

 

---

EFFECT OF BETTER TITLE ON TRESPASS CLAIMS

---

In law, such mere occupation or even illegal possession constitutes at best trespass at the suit of the person with a better title and thus pales into insignificance once the person with a better title, the 3rd Appellant, appears on the scene.- Per BIOBELE ABRAHAM GEORGEWILL, J.C.A.

 

---

DETERMINING ISSUES FROM PLEADINGS

---

In civil cases, facts are put in issue on the pleadings of the parties, and to determine what is or the issues in a civil case, a holistic and community reading and understanding of the totality of the averments in the pleadings of the parties is a sine quo non. – Per BIOBELE ABRAHAM GEORGEWILL, J.C.A.

 

---

APPELLATE INTERVENTION IN PERVERSE FINDINGS

---

My lords, having held that the lower Court erred gravely in law when it entered judgment for the 1st Respondent against the Appellants, this is a case in which this Court would readily intervene to set aside the perverse findings of the lower Court and dismiss the unproved and failed claims of the 1st Respondent for lacking in merit. – Per BIOBELE ABRAHAM GEORGEWILL, J.C.A.

 

---

CASES CITED

---

---

STATUTES REFERRED TO

---

1. Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended)

2. Evidence Act 2011

3. Ogun State Land Instrument Registration Law

4.Court of Appeal Rules 2021

 

---

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT