ALBERT KUVA V. JAURO WANSA
March 23, 2025TERHILE TION V. JOHN TERSEER MBAPUUN
March 23, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (2022-06) Legalpedia 60896 (CA)
In the Court of Appeal
HOLDEN AT YOLA
Wed Jun 8, 2022
Suit Number: CA/YL/49/2021
CORAM
FATIMAT.O. AKINBAMI
JAMILU YAMMAMA TUKUR
MOHAMMED LAWAL ABUBAKAR
PARTIES
1. KABIRU BUBALDE
2. ALH. ISA MUSTAPHA
APPELLANTS
MODIBBO MUHAMMADU JAURO LUGGA
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
APPEAL, COURT, JUDGMENT AND ORDER, LAND LAW, LAW OF EVIDENCE, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The Respondent acting on the belief that he and the family he represented were entitled to a declaration of title over the land in dispute measuring about 200 acres (approximately 75 hectares) lying and situate near Namtari Village, Namtari District of Yola South LGA of Adamawa State, brought an action before the lower Court vide writ of summons dated 30th April, 2012 and amended with leave of court, wherein he sought for declaratory and injunctive reliefs; general damages and cost of litigation. In response, the Appellants filed a joint statement of defence, and at the end of the trial, the lower Court held that the Respondent had established his entitlement to the declaration of title over the land in dispute and granted the reliefs sought, with the sum of N300,000 (Three hundred thousand naira), awarded as general damages for trespass and N100,000 (One hundred thousand naira) as cost of the suit. Dissatisfied, the Appellants appealed the judgment via their Notice of Appeal containing 5 (five) Grounds of Appeal.
HELD
Appeal Dismissed
ISSUES
Whether the trial Court was right to have entered judgment in favour of the Respondent having regard to the evidence and facts before it.
RATIONES DECIDENDI
DECLARATION OF TITLE TO LAND – DUTY OF A PARTY TO SUCCEED IN AN ACTION FOR DECLARATION OF TITLE TO LAND
“A declaration of title to land by a Court of competent jurisdiction in favour of one party and against another or others, has the effect of vesting the title over the land in question on the successful party while extinguishing all ownership rights in the land on the part of the person or persons against whom the order is made. The foregoing and the general principle of law to the effect that he who asserts must prove, is the reason why it is well settled principle of law that a party who desires the Court to make a declaration of title in its favour must clearly establish by cogent and reliable evidence, that such party is the owner of the land.
The Supreme Court in the case of Onovo & Ors v. Mba & Ors(2014) LPELR-23035(SC),(P. 27, paras. A-E) per OGUNBIYI, J.S.C. reiterated the foregoing thus:
“The law is also settled that in a claim for declaration of title to land, the onus lies on the plaintiffs/appellants to establish their claim on the strength of their own case and not rely on the weakness of the defendants/respondents. Therefore, the plaintiffs must satisfy the court that based on their pleadings and evidence they are entitled to the declaration sought. See Odunukev. Ofomata (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1225) 404 at 445.Also the case of Ekanem v. Akpan (1991) 8 NWLR (Pt. 211)616 at 631 where it was held by this court that: “In an action for declaration of title to land it is trite law that the plaintiff must prove title or at least prove to have been in exclusive possession as approved in the case of Ekpo v. Ita II NLR 68 and held further in the case of Idundun v. kumagba (1976) NMLR 200. Further he must on the strength of his case and not on the weakness of the defence.”
See: Section 137(1) of the Evidence Act; Kopek Construction Ltd. V. Ekisola(2010) LPELR-1703(SC); Olatomide & Anor v. Ikumuyilo & Ors(2019) LPELR-48374(CA); and Olatunji & Ors v. Ayeni(2019) LPELR-48495(CA). -PER J. Y. TUKUR, J.C.A
DECLARATION OF TITLE TO LAND – METHODS OF ESTABLISHING TITLE TO LAND
“The methods via which a Plaintiff may prove its entitlement to a declaration of title to land are:
(1) By traditional history or evidence or;
(2) By documents of title or;
(3) By various acts of ownership, numerous and positive and extending over a length of time as to warrant the inference of ownership or;
(4) By acts of long enjoyment and possession of the land or;
(5) By proof of possession of adjacent land in circumstances which renders it probable that the owner of such adjacent land would in addition be the owner of the land in dispute.
See: Ajibulu v. Ajayi (2013) LPELR-21860(SC); Kolo v. Lawan (2018) LPELR 44378 (SC); Eyo v. Onuoha & Anor (2011) LPELR 1873 (SC); Dike & Ors Vs. Okoloe Do & Ors (1999) LPELR – 946 (SC). PER J. Y. TUKUR, J.C.A
TRADITIONAL HISTORY – MODE OF PROVING OWNERSHIP OF LAND THROUGH TRADITIONAL HISTORY
“A party is at liberty to choose any way they wish to prove their ownership of land, so long as they present cogent, convincing and reliable evidence before the Court which helps to establish their claim on the balance of probability or preponderance of evidence, which is the standard of proof in civil cases, including cases of declaration of title to land. There is no gainsaying the fact that the Respondent at trial relied on traditional history as the means via which he sought to establish his entitlement to the reliefs sought from the lower Court and a careful examination of the evidence before the Court reveals that the Respondent did establish his claims to the required standard.
The Supreme Court in the case of Anuonye Wachukwu And Anor V Amadike Owuwanne And Anor [2011] 46 NSCQR 1(SC), pages 39-40, made pronouncements on how a trial Court ought to approach similar circumstances thus:
’Traditional history being of the nature it is -not documented- it usually boils down to the oath of the plaintiff and his witnesses against that of the defendant and his witnesses and the court is called upon to decide as to which of the versions of traditional history it prefers. To do this, the court usually evaluates the evidence side by side any documentary evidence available and acts of possession by the parties in recent memory, it is after evaluating these pieces of evidence that the court where possible decides on which version is preferable and why. Once the court believes the traditional evidence/history of the plaintiff as to the founding of the land in disputes, it means that the plaintiff has succeeded in establishing his claim to title of the land disputed and has to succeed.’’
See: Are v Ipaye (1990) NWLR (Pt.132)298 (SC). -PER J. Y. TUKUR, J.C.A
CASES CITED
STATUTES REFERRED TO
