Legalpedia Citation: (2024-07) Legalpedia 13713 (CA)

In the Court of Appeal

Holden at ibadan

Thu Jul 11, 2024

Suit Number: CA/IB/410/2020

CORAM

Ugochukwu Anthony Ogakwu-Justice court of appeal

Patricia Ajuma Mahmoud-justice court of appeal

Okon Efreti Abang-justice court of appeal

PARTIES

1. MADAM KUBURAT BANGBOYE (NEE JIMOH)
2. MR. MUSILIU JIMOH
3. MR. MUKAILA JIMOH
4. MRS. TOYIN ADEBAYO (NEE JIMOH)
5. MR. GANIYU JIMOH (Sued for themselves and on behalf of Jimoh Saka Family)
6. MR. ABIODUN ELIJAH SOLOMON

APPELLANTS

1. OLAMILEKAN OLADIPUPO COKER

RESPONDENTS

AREA(S) OF LAW

• Land Law
• Evidence
• Contract Law
• Practice and Procedure
• Trespass

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The respondent, Mr. Olamilekan Oladipupo Coker, filed a suit at the lower court against the appellants, Madam Kuburat Bangboye (Nee Jimoh) and others, seeking declarations of ownership over a disputed piece of land located at Kilometer 3, Ayetoro Road, Ogun Radio Area, Lafenwa, Abeokuta, Ogun State. The appellants and the respondent are related by family ties, with the dispute centering on the ownership of the land and whether the appellants’ father had rights to the land.

The respondent claimed that the land was purchased by his father in his name when he was a minor, and that the transfer was later formalized when he reached adulthood. The appellants, on the other hand, argued that the land was transferred to them by their father, and that the respondent’s mother had no right to sell the land.

After the case was heard, the trial court entered judgment in favor of the respondent, declaring him the rightful owner of the disputed land. Dissatisfied with the decision, the appellants appealed, challenging the respondent’s root of title and claiming that he had failed to prove ownership.

HELD

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and affirmed the decision of the lower court. The court held that the respondent had sufficiently proven his root of title and that the appellants had failed to provide credible evidence to challenge the respondent’s ownership. The court also found that the appellants’ claim that their father had transferred the land to them was unsupported by valid legal documents, and that the land was lawfully acquired by the respondent’s father. The court awarded N100,000.00 in costs to the respondent.

ISSUES

1. Whether the learned trial judge was right in holding that the respondent had proven ownership of the disputed land, despite the appellants’ challenges to the respondent’s root of title ?

RATIONES DECIDENDI

Proof of Ownership – Standard required in proving title to land

“In a claim for declaration of title to land, the claimant must succeed on the strength of his case and not on the weakness of the defense. The claimant is required to prove his root of title through credible documentary evidence or other admissible forms of proof.” Per U. A. Ogakwu, J.C.A

Validity of Land Sale Agreement – Requirement for proper transfer of title

“A sale of land requires the existence of a valid contract or agreement transferring the property from one party to another. In this case, the court found that the purported land transfer document presented by the appellants was invalid and did not pass title to the appellants’ father.” Per U. A. Ogakwu, J.C.A.

Documentary Evidence – Role of conveyance documents in land ownership disputes

“Conveyance documents, such as receipts or deeds, are essential in proving land ownership. The respondent’s tendering of the conveyance from his vendor was deemed sufficient proof of ownership, and the appellants’ failure to challenge this document weakened their case. “Per P. A. Mahmoud, J.C.A.

Trespass – Legal consequences of entering another’s land without title

“Entering land without the authority of the legal owner constitutes trespass, regardless of the trespasser’s belief about the validity of their own title. In this case, the appellants had no legal right to the land and were therefore liable for trespass.” Per O. E. Abang, J.C.A.

Burden of Proof – Requirement to prove root of title in land disputes

“In land disputes, the burden of proof lies on the party asserting ownership. The respondent provided a valid document of conveyance, which was accepted by the court, while the appellants failed to provide sufficient evidence to challenge the respondent’s ownership.” Per U. A. Ogakwu, J.C.A.

Establishing Root of Title – Consistency in evidence and claims

“The respondent’s consistent claim of ownership and the production of a valid receipt of purchase from his vendor outweighed the appellants’ contradictory and unsupported claims.” Per P. A. Mahmoud, J.C.A.

Effect of Failure to Produce Key Witnesses – Impact on party’s case

“The appellants’ failure to produce key witnesses or present documentary evidence to support their claim significantly weakened their case. The court held that they had not discharged the burden of proving their root of title.” Per O. E. Abang, J.C.A.

Injunction Against Trespass – When injunction is appropriate

“The court granted an injunction restraining the appellants from further acts of trespass, as they had no legal claim to the land and were unlawfully occupying it.” Per U. A. Ogakwu, J.C.A.

Invalidity of Coerced Agreements – Legal effect of coercion in contracts

“The court found that the agreement presented by the appellants was obtained under coercion and threats, making it legally unenforceable. A valid contract cannot arise from coercion.” Per P. A. Mahmoud, J.C.A.

Effect of Unchallenged Findings – Consequences of failing to appeal lower court’s findings

“The appellants failed to challenge key findings made by the trial court regarding the invalidity of their purported title. As these findings were unchallenged on appeal, they remain binding and conclusive.” Per U. A. Ogakwu, J.C.A.

Failure to Properly Challenge Evidence – Consequences of failure to contest evidence at trial

“The appellants did not sufficiently challenge the respondent’s evidence at trial, including the conveyance document. Their failure to contest the respondent’s root of title contributed to their loss.” Per O. E. Abang, J.C.A.

Doctrine of Nemo Dat Quod Non Habet – Application to land disputes

“A person cannot transfer a title to property that they do not possess. The appellants’ attempt to transfer ownership of the land was void because they did not have legal title to it.” Per P. A. Mahmoud, J.C.A.

Balance of Probability – Weighing the strength of evidence in land cases

“In civil cases, such as land disputes, the court will decide based on the balance of probabilities. The respondent’s evidence was more credible and persuasive than the appellants’, leading to the judgment in his favor.” Per U. A. Ogakwu, J.C.A.

CASES CITED

STATUTES REFERRED TO

1. Land Use Act
2. Evidence Act 2011
3. Contract Law
   

   CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGEMENT