MAHAMOOD BUBA BINDIR V JIBRILLA BASHIR & ORS
April 3, 2025BULUS HAMMAN V AMINU UMAR BABA
April 3, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (2019) Legalpedia (CA) 11910
In the Court of Appeal
HOLDEN AT YOLA
Sun Dec 8, 2019
Suit Number: CA/YL/34/2019
CORAM
PARTIES
HAYATOU ZAPHANIAH APPELLANTS
ALLEN GARBA RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The Plaintiff/Appellant instituted the action at the Trial Court against the Defendants/Respondents to recover his son’s farmland which he borrowed the 1st Respondent pending the return of his son. The Plaintiff/Appellant’s case was that the 1stDefendant/Respondent approached him requesting for a portion of the land, which he obliged him on the condition that the 1st Defendant/Respondent will return same upon request. The 1st Defendant/Respondent then apportioned part of the land to the 2nd Defendant/Respondent to plough. The Plaintiff/Appellant, upon the return of his son (who happened to be the owner of the land in question) requested for the return and evacuation of the land as agreed, but the 2nd Defendant/Respondent on the instruction of the 1st Defendant/Respondent refused to vacate the land. The Plaintiff/Appellant therefore was prompted to institute an action at the Zangra Area Court to recover the land. In its Judgment, the trial court gave the 1st farmland to the Appellant, while the 2nd and 3rd farmlands were given to the 2nd Respondent. Aggrieved, the Appellant appealed to Adamawa State High Court, wherein his appeal was dismissed. The Appellant has further appealed to the Court of Appeal.
HELD
Appeal Dismissed.
ISSUES
Whether the Learned Lower Court Judge was right when he declared title to the whole farmlands on the 2nd Respondent by setting aside the farmland declared on the Appellant by the Trial Court, on the ground that the Appellant (as Plaintiff) failed woefully to prove his case on the preponderance of evidence. Whether the learned Lower Court judge was right when he held that the Appellant was never in possession of the portion held in trust of his cousin (Joseph)
RATIONES DECIDENDI
DECLARATORY RELIEFS – CONDITION PRECEDENT FOR THE GRANT OF DECLARATORY RELIEFS
“Declaratory reliefs are not granted as a matter of course and on a platter of gold. They are granted when credible evidence has been led by the Plaintiff/Claimant. It is the law that the plaintiff must plead and prove his claim for declaratory relief on the strength of his case and not on the weakness of the defendant. Such declaratory reliefs are not granted even on admission by the defendant. See Anyawu v. Mandilas Ltd. (2007) 4 SCNJ 288 and Matanmi & Ors v. Dada & Anor (2013) LPELR-19929.UgojiVsOnukogu (2005) 16 NWLR (Pt. 950) 97, Ashiru Vs Olukoya (2006) 11, NWLR (Pt. 990) 1 Njoku Vs Registered Trustees of the Congregation of the Holy Ghost Fathers (2006) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1011) 239, Usung Vs Nyong (2010) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1177) 83, Ogunjemila V. Ajibade (2010) 11 NWLR (Pt.1206) 559.”
OWNERSHIP OF LAND – DUTY ON A CLAIMANT TO PROVE OWNERSHIP OF LAND
“Where a claimant’s claim to a piece of land in dispute is predicated on ownership, the onus is on him to prove and establish his ownership – Elegushi Vs Oseni (2005) 14 NWLR (Pt. 945) 348.
The claimant must prove to the satisfaction of the Court that he has a better title than the defendant and the standard of proof is on a balance of probabilities – Abaye Vs Ofili (1986) 1 NWLR (Pt. 15) 134, Ugwunze Vs Adeleke (2008) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1070) 148, Eyo Vs Onuoha (2011) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1257) 1 Momoh Vs Umoru (2011) 15 NWLR (Pt.1270) 217.”
TITLE TO LAND – DUTY ON A PARTY RELYING ON TRADITIONAL HISTORY OF OWNERSHIP OF LAND
“The law is trite that where title to land is disputed, it is not enough for a party relying on traditional history of ownership of land to merely assert without more that his father inherited the land in dispute or that his predecessor-in-title had owned and possessed the land from time immemorial – Bamgbose v. Oshoko (1988) 2 NWLR (Pt. 78) 509, Alli Vs Alesinloye (2000) 6 NWLR (Pt. 660) 177, Achiakpa V Nduka (2001) 14 NWLR (Pt. 734) 623, Nruamah Vs Ebuzoeme (2006) 9 NWLR (pt. 985) 217, Alikor V. Ogwo (2010) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1181) 281. A party relying on traditional history must plead with particularity, and lead cogent evidence to prove (i) who founded the land in dispute and exercised original acts of possession; (ii) in what manner the land was founded; and (ii) the successive persons to whom the land thereafter devolved through an unbroken chain or in such a way that there is no gap which cannot be explained and history must show how the land by a system eventually came to be owned by the party – Akinloye v. Eyilola (1968) NMLR 92 at 95, Piaro Vs Tenalo (1976) 12 SC 31, Total (Nig) Ltd v. Nwako (1978) 5 SC 1 at 12, Elias Vs Omo-Bare (1982) 5 SC 25 at 57-58, Kalio v. Woluchem (1985) 1 NWLR (Pt. 4) 572 at 628, Elegushi v Oseni (2005) 14 NWLR (Pt. 945) 341.”
CASES CITED
Not Available
