CORAM
FATAI-WILLIAMS, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT
PARTIES
IKKO KASHADADI APPELLANTS
INGILLAS ARKIN NOMA RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The Respondent was the Plaintiff at the trial court, Upper Area Court No.1 Minna, where he claimed against the Defendant now the Appellant as follows: “The Plaintiff is seeking the assistance of this Honourable Court against the IKKO (the Defendant) for declaration of a title to a piece of land which the (sic) inherit the land from his father Sarkin Noma Kuta”. In reply to the said claim the Defendant stated as follows: “The land does not belong to the Plaintiff. I only know Yeko. I borrow Yeko.” After hearing both parties, the trial court dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim and gave title of the farm in dispute to the Defendant. The Plaintiff then appealed to the High Court Minna, relying on the omnibus ground. The High Court sitting as an appellate court gave its judgment and set aside the decision of the trial court, and in its place declared title to the land on the Plaintiff. The Defendant being dissatisfied has now appealed to this court with the leave of the court.
HELD
Appeal Dismissed.
ISSUES
Whether on the balance of probabilities the plaintiff was entitled to a declaration of title in his favour?
RATIONES DECIDENDI
BRIEF OF ARGUMENT – DUTY OF APPELLATE COURT TO DO SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE TO PARTIES IRRESPECTIVE OF A BAD, FAULTY OR AN INELEGANT BRIEF
“Even though learned counsel to the respondent has rightly conceded that the appeal not be struck out for non compliance with observable practice it is the stance of the Supreme Court and of this court that a bad, faulty or inelegant brief or one which is procedurally irregular, may attract some adverse comments from the appellate court, is still a brief and the shortcomings displayed are liable to be overlooked in the courts quest to do substantial justice to the parties before it:- Alhaji Otaru & Sons V. Idris 1999 4 S.C.N.J., 156, (1999) 6 NWLR (PT. 606) 330.”
FRESH ISSUES ON APPEAL – CONDITION PRECEDENT FOR RAISING FRESH ISSUES ON APPEAL
“Even though an appellant may raise fresh issues on appeal not raised at the lower court he must first obtain the leave of this court. The appellant had not in this instance sought the leave of this court, so he cannot at this stage be allowed to raise fresh issues which were not canvassed before the two lower courts without leave Din V. Attorney-General Of The Federation (1988) 4 NWLR (PT.87) 147; Attorney-General, Oyo State V. Fairlakes Hotel Limited (1988) 5 NWLR (PT. 92) 1; Odekilekun V. Hassan (1997) 12 NWLR (PT. 531) 56; Coker V. Reis 2000 6 NWLR (PT. 659) 78; Onyemaizu V. Ojiako 2000 6 NWLR (PT. 659) 25.”
FRESH ISSUES ON APPEAL – EFFECT OF RAISING FRESH ISSUES ON APPEAL WITHOUT THE LEAVE OF COURT
“The effect of raising the said issues without leave is the striking out of the grounds of appeal the issues raised from them and the arguments thereon.”
DECLARATION OF TITLE TO LAND – WAYS OF PROVING OWNERSHIP OR TITLE TO LAN D
“In a claim for a declaration of title to land, the accepted modes of proof are:
1. by traditional evidence;
2. by proof of acts of ownership;
3. by document of title;
4. by proof of acts of long possession;
5. by proof of possession of adjoining land.
Ayanwale V. Atanda (1988) 1 NWLR (PT. 68) 22 – Idudun V. Okumagba (1976) 910 S.C.227.”
TRADITIONAL HISTORY – FACTS TO BE ESTABLISHED WHEN A CLAIM OF TITLE TO LAND IS FOUNDED ON TRADITIONAL HISTORY
“A plaintiff whose claim is founded on traditional history must establish such facts as:
1. who found the land;
2. how he found the land;
3. particulars of intervening ownership through whom he claims.
Where therefore the line of succession is not satisfactorily traced and has gaps or nexus which are not established, then such line of succession would be rejected. Mogaji V. Cadbury (Nig.) Limited (1985) 2 NWLR (PT. 7) 393.”
DECLARATION OF TITLE TO LAND – ONUS ON A PLAINTIFF IN A CLAIM FOR DECLARATION OF TITLE TO LAND
“In a claim for declaration of title, the onus is always on the plaintiff to establish by evidence his entitlement to the declaration he seeks and he must rely on the strength of his own case, and cannot rely on the weakness of the defendant’s case. If that burden is not discharged, proper judgment will be for the defendant.”
APPELLATE COURT – DUTY OF AN APPELLATE COURT TO CONSIDER AND APPRAISE PIECES OF EVIDENCE BEFORE IT
“It is always the duty of an appellate court to consider and give the necessary appraisal to all pieces of evidence forming part of the records before it.”
DECLARATION OF TITLE TO LAND – WHETHER A PLAINTIFF CAN SUCCEED ON THE WEAKNESS OF THE DEFENCE IN AN ACTION FOR DECLARATION OF TITLE TO LAND
“I entirely agree with the firm principle of law that in an action for declaration of title to land the plaintiff must succeed on the strength of his case and not on the weakness of the defence. Kodilinye V. Odu 2 WACA. 336.”
DECLARATION OF TITLE TO LAND – WHETHER A PLAINTIFF CAN SUCCEED ON THE WEAKNESS OF THE DEFENCE WHERE HE IS UNABLE TO DISCHARGE THE BURDEN OF PROOF
“It goes without saying therefore that, if the burden placed on the plaintiff is not discharged, the weakness of the defendant’s case will not help him and the ultimate judgment is for the defendant if he has sought for a declaration Makanjuola V. Balogun (1989) 3 NWLR (PT.108) 192; Abisi V. Ekwealor (1993) 6 NWLR (PT.302) 643.”
TITLE TO LAND – WHETHER A PLAINTIFF CAN TAKE ADVANTAGE OF EVIDENCE ADDUCED BY THE DEFENCE TO ESTABLISH HIS TITLE
“However, I think it is well settled that, a plaintiff is entitled to take advantage of any evidence adduced by the defence which tends to support his case and establish his title. See the case of Macaulay V. Omiyale (1997) 4 NWLR (PT.497) 94/106 per Uwafo, J.C.A. as he then was.”
CASES CITED
Not Available
STATUTES REFERRED TO
Not Available|
CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT