USMAN MOHAMMED.V. THE STATE
April 4, 2025KELVIN Z. ILIYA & ANOR V. PETER LAMU & ANOR
April 4, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (2019) Legalpedia (CA) 53117
In the Court of Appeal
HOLDEN AT YOLA
Sun Mar 24, 2019
Suit Number: CA/YL/104/2018
CORAM
HON. JUSTICE OYEBISI F. OMOLEYE (JP)
PARTIES
HON. PETER I.A. PERO APPELLANTS
UMAR GARBA ALLASURE RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The appeal is against the judgment of the High Court of Taraba State. The Appellant as the Plaintiff at the lower court instituted an action against the Respondent as the Defendant seeking a declaration of title over a parcel of land, injunction restraining the Defendant, heirs, privies and assigns from further acts of trespass on the land and the sum of five million naira as damages for trespass. The Appellant traced his root of title to the vendor through purchase whilst the Respondent also traced his root of title to the Appellant’s vendor but was unable to prove same. At the close of the trial, the learned trial judge dismissed the Appellant’s claim, it held that even if the Appellant had proved that he purchased the land in dispute from Alh. Abubakar S. Umar, that the Appellant still had the burden to prove the title of his vendor, and that the vendor had a right to seek for title to pass to him. Dissatisfied with the trial court’s judgment, the Appellant has filed the instant appeal
HELD
Appeal Allowed in part
ISSUES
Whether the failure by the learned trial judge to consider and pronounce on the issues validly raised by the Appellant as well as Exhibit ‘A’ amounts to a denial of fair hearing Whether having regard to the pleadings and evidence on record, the judgment of the trial Court dismissing the case of the Appellant is perverse and liable to be set aside?
RATIONES DECIDENDI
BREACH OF THE RIGHT TO FAIR HEARING – DUTY OF A PARTY WHO ALLEGES A BREACH OF HIS RIGHT TO FAIR HEARING
“It is trite that it is the duty of a party that has alleged the breach of his right to fair hearing to prove the allegation from the Record of Proceedings in which the alleged breach occurred. It is not sufficient for a party to merely wave the flag of breach or denial of fair hearing in the conduct of proceedings of a court without going further to show the manner in which the breach or denial occurred from the Record of Proceedings of the court, since the breach would normally occur in the procedure adopted in the conduct of the proceedings. See: Ejeka Vs. State (2003) 6 SCM,1; Maikyo Vs. Itodo (2007) 5 MJSC, 60; Gbadamosi Vs. Dairo (2007) 1 SCNJ 444; Magaji Vs. Nigeria Army (2008) 8 NWLR (1089) 338, Orugbo Vs. Una (2002) 16 NWLR (792) 175; Inakoju Vs. Adeleke (2007) 4 NWLR (1025) 423, FBN, PLC VS. ISA IND. (2010) 15 NWLR (1216) 259 and Ngadi VS, FRN (2018) LPELR – 43636 (CA) P. 11, paragraphs A – E.” –
DENIAL OF FAIR HEARING – DUTY OF A PARTY ALLEGING A DENIAL OF FAIR HEARING
“It is the law that a party that alleges denial of fair hearing must demonstrate and prove specific acts of such denial. See: Ifeanyichukwu Ejeka Vs. The State (2003) 7 NWLR (PT 819) page 408 at 421, Paragraphs C – E” –
DENIAL OF FAIR HEARING- PURPORT OF A DENIAL OF FAIR HEARING
“A denial of fair hearing connotes a refusal to consider the pertinent and relevant issues in the case essential to its determination. In such a case, a fair minded independent and objective observer would come to the conclusion that the hearing of the case has not been fair to the person affected. The lower court heard the appellant present his case, the judgment after analysis of the facts and evidence before the court is left to the court to decide based on the issues raised, this was what the trial court did. In my candid view, there was no denial of fair hearing on the part of the lower court. The Appellant was given full opportunity to present his case at the lower court and I cannot fault the procedure. See: Bamaiyi Vs. State & Ors (2001) LPELR – 731 (SC) – PP 37 – 38, paras. G – B and T. A. O. Wilson & Anor Vs. A. B. Oshin & Ors (2000) LPELR – 3497 (SC) PP. 28 – 29, paras. F – C, (2000) 6 SC (PT 111) P. 1; (2000) 9 NWLR PT. 673 P. 442 (2010) FWLR (PT 14) P. 3311.” –
IDENTITY OF LAND – INSTANCE WHERE THE NEED TO ASCERTAIN THE IDENTITY OF LAND IN DISPUTE WILL BE DISPENSED WITH
“The law is trite that when the land in dispute is known to the parties, the issue of location and boundary ceases to be an issue to be resolved by the court, it no longer arises. In the case of Osuogwugwu V. Emerua (2006) LPELR -11932 (CA) PP. 17-18, PARASGRAPHS F-A his Lordship, Omage, JCA held thus:
“It is the law that if the area of land in dispute is known to both parties in dispute the issue of proof goes to no issue Osho V. Are (1998) 60 LRC 4077 at page 4101 (ii) Odofin V. Oni (2001) 3 LRCN 384 P. 398”
Similarly, in Charlie & Ors V. Gudi & Ors (2006) LPELR-7715 (CA) P. 32, PARAS B-E his Lordship Muhammed, JCA (as he then was) held thus:
“It is a claimant’s burden to establish the identity of the land in dispute of which he seeks from the court a declaration of title. However, if the identity of the land is from the pleadings of parties, ascertained with clarity the burden to so establish the identity of the very land ceases to be an otherwise necessary burden of the claimant. And this is what happened in the instant case. In that wise the trial court is right to have so held and concluded that the establishment of the identity of the land in dispute was no longer necessary. See: Ogun V. Akinyelu (2004) 18 NWLR (PT. 905) 362 SC and Adelusola Vs. Akinola (2004) 12 NWLR (PT. 887) 295 SC. See also, Kuta & Anor Vs . Audu (2017) LPELR – 4317 (CA) PP. 11-12, Paragraphs F-A, Duru & Ors V. Duru & Ors (2017) LPELR -42 490 (CA) PP. 41-42, Paragraphs F-C and Ikumuyilo & Anor V. Akinjagunla (2018) LPELR-44 334 (CA) PP 38-39 paras C-B.” –
TITLE TO LAND – WHETHER THE COURT NEEDS TO INQUIRE INTO THE TITLE OF A PREDECESSOR IN TITLE WHERE A PARTY HAS SATISFIED THE COURT AS TO HIS TITLE TO THE LAND IN DISPUTE
“In Akaniyeye & Ors Vs. Etim (2012) LPELR – 9792 (CA) P. 20, paras B-D, his lordship Ndukwe-Anyawu, JCA, stated the position of the law thus:
“The law is that “where” a party has satisfied the court as to his title to land in dispute, the court need not inquire into the title of his predecessor in title. The party does not need to prove the title of his vendors except where it has become an issue. Ajibulu Vs. Ajayi (2004) 11 NWLR PT. 885 Page 458; Dosunmu Vs. Joto (1987) 4 NWLR Pt. 65 Page 297.”
See, also Aiyeola V. Pedro (2014) LPELR -22915 (SC) PP 36-37, Paragraphs G-A.”
–
CASES CITED
None
STATUTES REFERRED TO
NIL|
