CORAM

---

PETER OLABISI IGE, JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL

BIOBELE ABRAHAM GEORGEWILL, JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL

ISAH BATURE GAFAI, JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL

---

PARTIES

---

M. L. MANDE ENTERPRISES LIMITED

APPELLANTS 

---

1. THE REGISTERED TRUSTEES OF SEVENTH DAY ADVENTIST CHURCH IN NIGERIA

2. THE MINISTER OF FEDERAL CAPITAL TERRITORY

3. THE FEDERAL CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (FCDA)

RESPONDENTS 

---

AREA(S) OF LAW

---

ACTION, APPEAL, COURT, CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE, JUDGEMENT AND ORDER, LAND LAW, LAW OF EVIDENCE, LIMITATION LAW, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE, STATUTE OF LIMITATION

 

---

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Appellant was the original allottee of the land in dispute situate at Plot 849, Cadastral Zone, Durumi District, Abuja and did not at any time alienate same to one Mr. Benjamin Ochai or any other person and therefore, remained the owner of the said land in dispute.  However, the 1st Respondent alleged that the Appellant had for monetary consideration, through late Alhaji Mande, sold the said plot of land to one Mr. Benjamin Ochai in1998, who in turn had vide an irrevocable Power of Attorney sold the said plot of land in 1999 to one Mrs. Cecilia Onuiri, who in turn sold the same to the 1st Respondent in 2000, who proceeded to take steps to perfect its interest before the emergence of the Appellant to interfere with the process. The Appellant denied that its late Managing Director, one late Alhaji Mande, ever in his life time conveyed its interest to the 1st Respondent to warrant the process of perfecting title by the 1st Respondent since the Appellant had remained the owner of the said land having never transferred its ownership of the said land to any person, including all or any of the 1st Respondent’s predecessors in title. Hence, the Appellant commenced this action for declaration of title in respect of the land in dispute, before the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory Abuja, vide a Writ of Summons and a Further Amended Statement of Claim wherein he sought for declaratory and injunctive reliefs, amongst other reliefs. In reaction, upon service of the processes, the 1st Respondent filed an Amended Statement of Defense and Counter – Claim.

At the end of the trial, the lower Court in its judgment, dismissed the claims of the Appellant against the Respondents for lacking in merit, while part of the counter – claim of the 1st Respondent was granted against the Appellant. Aggrieved by the judgment, the Appellant has appealed against same vide his Notice of Appeal containing eight (8) Grounds of Appeal.

 

---

HELD

---

Appeal Dismissed

 

---

ISSUES

---

Whether from the state of pleadings and evidence, the Court below correctly admitted an unregistered deed of assignment (Exhibit D15) same having been pleaded and put in evidence as a document conferring and evidencing title in favour of 1st Respondent?

Whether Exhibits D15, D16 and D17 are admissible in evidence having failed to satisfy the provisions of Sections 102 (b) and 104 of the Evidence Act, 2011 which require certification of private documents in public custody and Section 84 of the Evidence Act2011, being a mandatory requirement for certification of Computer – generated documents?

Whether the Court below was right to have admitted Exhibit D16 in evidence in view of its reliance on the decision in Abu V. Kuyabana (2002) 4 NWLR (Pt. 748) 599 @ p. 614 and Section 2 of Land Registration Act, Cap. 515. LFN, 1990 (Abuja)?

Whether the Court was right in ignoring or downplaying the importance of the fact of collection of the Certificate of Occupancy and went ahead to reach a conclusion that PW1 admitted the fact of collection of the Certificate of Occupancy in the custody of the 2nd and 3rd Respondents?

Whether the Court below was right in refusing to take note of clear acts of illegalities or irregularities in the course of proceedings?

Whether or not the Court below was correct in improperly evaluating 2nd and 3rd Respondents’ evidence and ascribing probative value to the pieces of evidence thereof?

From the peculiar circumstance of this case and totality of evidence and facts placed before the Court below, whether it was right in placing reliance on the Limitation Act, Cap. 522, LFN, 1990 (Abuja) and invoking the doctrine(s) of laches and acquiescence in giving judgement in favour of the 1st Respondent?

 

---

RATIONES DECIDENDI

---

REPLY BRIEF – WHAT A REPLY BRIEF SHOULD NOT BE USED FOR

---

“The reply brief, it must be reiterated, is not and cannot be an avenue for an Appellant to re – argue his appeal or merely to have a second bite at the cherry. See Order 19 Rules 5 (1) of the Court of Appeal Rules 2021. See Olafisoye V. FRN 2004 1SC Pt. 11 27; Ikine V. Edjerode (2001) 12 SC (Pt. 11) 94; Longe V. FBN (2010) 2 – 3 SC 61; Registered Trustees, Ikoyi Club 1938 V. Mr. Timothy Ikujuni (2019) LPELR – 47373 (CA). -PER B. A. GEORGEWILL, J.C.A

 

---

PERIOD OF LIMITATION – PERIOD FOR COMMENCING AN ACTION ON RECOVERY OF LAND IN DISPUTE

---

“Now, by Section 15(2) of the Limitation Act, Cap 522, LFN (Abuja) 1990, it is provided thus:

“No action by a person to recover land (a) shall subject to paragraph (b) of this subsection, be brought after the expiration of twelve years from the date on which the right of action accrued to the person bringing it or if it first accrued to some person through whom he claims, to that person”.

The law is that an action involving declaration of title by way of claim for recovery of land shall be commenced before the expiration of 12 years from the date on which the right of action accrued. PER B. A. GEORGEWILL, J.C.A

 

---

CASES CITED

---

NONE

 

---

STATUTES REFERRED TO

---

Court of Appeal Rules 2021

Evidence Act 2011

High Court of the Federal Territory Abuja (Civil Procedure Rules) 2004

Land Registration Act, Cap. 515. LFN, 1990 (Abuja)

Land Use Act 1978

Limitation Act, Cap. 522, LFN, 1990 (Abuja)

 

---

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT