MOHAMMED UMAR IBRAHIM V. NASIRU DANLADI MU’AZU & 2 ORS

Legalpedia Citation: (2022-06) Legalpedia 91349 (CA)

In the Court of Appeal

HOLDEN AT GOMBE

Mon May 30, 2022

Suit Number: CA/G/317/2019

CORAM

JUMMAI HANNATU SANKEY JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL

IBRAHIM SHATA BDLIYA JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL

EBIOWEI TOBI JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL

PARTIES

MOHAMMED UMAR IBRAHIM

APPELLANTS

NASIRU DANLADI MU’AZU
MINISTRY OF LAND AND SURVEY, GOMBE STATE
MUHAMMED INUWA YAHAYA

RESPONDENTS

AREA(S) OF LAW

APPEAL, COURT, LAND LAW, LAW OF EVIDENCE, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Plaintiff/Appellant claimed that a Committee on Recovering of Government Plots cleared him as the bonafide owner of plot No. E-43 in Layout. No. GDP/4 with right of Occupancy No. GM/14660, and same was communicated to him vide a letter dated the 19th of January, 2016, signed by the Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Land and Survey, Gombe State and the Chairman of the Screening Committee.

The 3rd Respondent, claimed that the land in dispute, was allocated to him in 2008, by the Government of Gombe State vide a letter dated 16th of July, 2008, which was confirmed by the Screening Committee, Ministry of Lands and Survey, Gombe State as the bonafide owner of the said plot. The said letter was signed by the Permanent Secretary, Ministry of land and Survey, Gombe State, on the 23rd day of January, 2017. The Chairman of the Screening Committee, also signed the document.

Upon the Appellant’s discovery that the 3rd Respondent was on the said piece of land, he instituted a suit before the Gombe State High Court. wherein he claimed declaratory and injunctive reliefs, general and special damages against the Defendants. The trial court in its judgment refused the Appellant’s claims and dismissed the suit as lacking in merit.

Dissatisfied with the judgment of the lower court, the Appellant has appealed to this Court vide a notice of appeal

HELD

Appeal Dismissed

ISSUES

Whether, on the totality of the evidence adduced by the appellant, before the lower court, he proved his claims on the preponderance of evidence, to warrant entering the judgment of the lower court in his favour?

RATIONES DECIDENDI

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION – DUTY OF AN APPELLATE COURT TO EITHER ADOPT, REFRAME OR FORMULATE NEW ISSUES IN THE DETERMINATION OF AN APPEAL

“In Considering the issues for determination in an appeal formulated in the briefs of argument of the parties, an appellate court can, either adopt or reframe or even formulate new issues, in the determination of the appeal. This is the law as enunciated in the case of FRN V. Ogbegolu (2006) 18 NWLR (PT. 1010) P. 188 @ 225 where it was held that, after examining the issues for determination, it is the duty of an appellate court to either adopt those in the briefs of argument or formulate new ones which he believes would determined the real complaint or grievances of the appellant. See also Adaku Vs Ajeh (1994) 5 NWLR (PT. 346) P. 582 and Ikegwuha V. Ohawuchin (1996) 3 NWLR (PT. 435) P. 146”. PER I.S.BDLIYA,J.C.A

CLAIM FOR DECLARATION OF TITLE TO LAND – DUTY OF A PLAINTIFF IN A CLAIM FOR DECLARATION OF TITLE TO LAND

“The law is settled, an appellant has the duty to prove his case based on preponderance of evidence. See Afolabi Vs Ola (2016) LPELR 40186 (CA). A plaintiff is not allowed to rely on the weakness of the respondent’s case in establishing his case. See Umeadi & Ors Vs Chibuze & Ors (2020) 3 SCM page 195 -196 para 1, A per Peter Odili, JSC where it was held

“The learned jurist and author said it is as it, and again it is, trite and quite settled that in a claim for a declaration of title of land, the onus is on the plaintiff to establish his claim upon the strength of his own case and not on the weakness of the case of the defendant. The plaintiff must therefore satisfy the court that, upon pleadings and evidence adduced by him he is entitled to the declaration sought. See cases of Eya v. Olapode, Odunukwe Vs Omofota,…..”

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

“There are five (5) ways to prove title to land as enunciated in a plethora of pronouncements by the superior Courts among which are Baba-Iya Vs Sekile (2006) 3 NWLR (PT 965) P. 508 @ 528 wherein it was stated that; title to land may be proved by any of the following:

i.By tradition evidence

ii.By production of title documents, duly authenticated.

iii.By acts of selling, leasing, renting out all or part of it, or farming on it or portion of it.

iv.Acts long possession and enjoyment of land

v.Proof of possession of connected or adjacent land in circumcisions rendering it probable that the owner of such land would in addition be the owner of the land in dispute. See Baba-Iya Vs Sekile (2006) 3 NWLR (PT 965) P. 508 @ 528; Idundun Vs Okumagba (1976) 9 -10 SC & 77 and Nkado Vs Obiano (1997) 5 NWLR (PT. 503) P. 31.

CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY – PRESUMPTION RAISED BY CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY

“Being certificates of occupancy, they raise presumption that the person named therein is the holder of title thereof. See Mani Vs Shanono (2007) ALL FWLR (PT. 724) P. 305 @ 318.

-PER I.S.BDLIYA,J.C.A

CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY – REQUIREMENT FOR THE VALIDITY OF A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY

“For a certificate of occupancy to be valid it must be issued after the grant of a right of occupancy under Section 5 (1) (a) or Section 6 (l)(a)

and (b) or Section 34(1) of the Land Use Act. A certificate of occupancy

must not be issued when there is in existence another one issued over same land. In Madu Vs Madu (2008) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1083) P. 286 @ 325, the Supreme Court held that for a certificate of occupancy, under the Land Use Act, to be valid, there must not be in existence, at the time the certificate was issued, a statutory or customary owner of the land in issue who was not divested of his legal interest to the land prior to the grant. However, this principle of law is only relevant in cases where a claimant has proved that he has a prior and un-extinguished title to the land so that the new right of occupancy cannot over-ride, extinguish or have priority over that existing right. In Apostolic Church Vs Olawolemi (1990) 10 SCNJ P. 69 @ 25, the Supreme Court also held that if the issuance of a certificate of occupancy was not in accordance with the Land Use Act, the certificate is defective and the holder has no basis for a valid claim title over the land See also Azi Vs Reg. Trustees Of Evan. Church (1990) 5 NWLR (Pt. 195) P. 111 @ 121”.

-PER I.S.BDLIYA,J.C.A