CORAM

---

JUSTICE ABDULLAHI MAHMUD BAYERO

FOLASADE AYODEJI OJO

CHIDI NWAOMA UMA

---

PARTIES

---

I.A.D (NIG) LIMITED APPELLANTS

---

SAMPARACO (NIG) LIMITED RESPONDENTS

---

AREA(S) OF LAW

---

---

SUMMARY OF FACTS

By an amended statement of claim, the Plaintiff/Respondent before the Adamawa State High Court, claimed against the Defendant/Appellant a declaration that he is the lawful and bonafide owner of a land measuring 8868.90m covered by Customary Certificate of Occupancy, a declaration that the placing of trees, three electrical poles and the subsequent excavation and building of a wall on the Plaintiff’s land by the Defendant amounts to continuing trespass and an order directing the Defendant to remove the three electrical poles unlawfully placed on the Plaintiff’s land and to demolish the wall unlawfully erected by the Defendant on the Plaintiff’s land. The Plaintiff/Respondent alternatively sought an order directing the Defendant to pay the sum of N20 million only being current market value of the land in dispute, the sum of N5,000,000(Five Million Naira) as general damages for trespass among others. Pleadings were exchanged and issues joined. The Respondent called one witness and tendered four exhibits (A. A1, B and B1). The Appellant neither called any witness nor tendered any document in its defence. The trial court delivered its Judgment granting all the reliefs sought by the Respondent. Dissatisfied with the trial court’s judgment, the Appellant has filed this Appeal.

---

HELD

---

Appeal Dismissed

---

ISSUES

---

Whether proof of root of title is essential to proof of title to land? Whether the foreclosure of the Appellant by the trial court to enter its defence violated its right to fair hearing? Whether in a trial for declaration of land a Plaintiff succeeds on the strength of its case?

---

RATIONES DECIDENDI

---

PROOF OF TITLE TO LAND – WAYS OF PROVING TITLE TO LAND

---

“There are five fundamental ways of proving title to land. A foremost authority in which these pre requisites were prescribed is the case of Idundun V. Okumagba (1976) 9-10 SC 227 where the Supreme Court prescribed five ways of proving title to land thus:-
(1) By traditional evidence
(2) By document of title
(3) By various acts of ownership numerous and positive and extending over a length of time as to warrant the inference of ownership.
(4) By act of lawful enjoyment and possession of the land.
By proof of possession of adjacent land in circumstances which render it probable that the owner of such land in addition be the owner of the adjacent land. See Mogaji V. Cadbury Nigeria Ltd (1985) NWLR (Part 7) 393; LPELR – 1889 SC. A claimant must plead and prove any of these five different ways of proving ownership of land, though he need not plead and prove more than one of these ways. See Biariko V. Edeh – Ogwuile (2001) 12 NWLR (Part 726). Proof of one single root of title is sufficient to sustain the claimant’s claim for declaration of title to land. See Onwugufor V. Okoye (1996) 1 NWLR (Part 424) 252 and Olagunju V. Adeosoye (2009) 9 NWLR (Part 1146) 225.” –

---

LAW OF EVIDENCEUNCHALLENGED EVIDENCE- STATUS OF UNCHALLENGED EVIDENCE

---

“This piece of evidence was not challenged or controverted during cross examination as reflected at Page 82 of the Record of Appeal. The law is trite that it is deemed admitted. See Niger Benin Transport Co. Ltd. V. Okeke (2005) AFWLR (Part 256) Page 1286.” –

---

PROOF OF TITLE TO LAND – WHETHER PROOF OF DOCUMENT OF TITLE IS A MEANS OF PROVING TITLE TO LAND

---

“The document which further proved the title of the Respondent to the disputed land is the Certificate of Customary title issued to it by Yola South Local Government (Exhibit A1). This is because in Idundun V. Okumaga (Supra) it was Held that proof of document of title is one of the ways of proving title to land. Furthermore, in Onwugufor V. Okoye (Supra) it was established that proof of one single root of title is sufficient to sustain claimant’s claim of title to land.” –

---

RIGHT TO FAIR HEARING-MEANING OF THE RIGHT TO FAIR HEARING

---

“The right to fair hearing connotes that a party is given the opportunity to be heard, it is not the duty of the court to make sure that the party takes advantage of such opportunity. A party who fails or refuses to take advantage of the fair hearing process created by the court, cannot complain for lack of fair hearing. See Ahmad V. Ahmad (2013) AFWLR (Part 699) 1025 at 1970.” –

---

CASES CITED

---

None

---

STATUTES REFERRED TO

---

Nil|

---

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT

---