Legalpedia Citation: (2024-07) Legalpedia 22521 (SC)

In the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Holden at Abuja

Fri Jul 12, 2024

Suit Number: SC.941/2019

CORAM

mohammed garba-Justice of supreme court

emmanuel akomaye agim-Justice of supreme court

chioma egondu nwosu-iheme-Justice of supreme court

haruna simon tsammani-Justice of supreme court

PARTIES

1. OSIBAKORO OTUEDON

APPELLANTS

1. UCHENNA LIVINUS OFOR

(For himself and on behalf of Prince Otuedon Family of Ugbolokposo)

RESPONDENTS

AREA(S) OF LAW

• Land Law
• Doctrine of Acquiescence
• Title to Land
• Evidence
• Equity
• Laches
• Civil Procedure

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The appellant, Mr. Osibakoro Otuedon, claimed to be the head and accredited representative of the Prince Otuedon family of Ugbolokposo Town. He filed a suit against the respondent, Mr. Uchenna Livinus Ofor, alleging that the respondent had trespassed on the family land, which measured approximately 460.932 square meters, and built a house on it without approval or consent from the Otuedon family. The appellant sought declarations of title to the land, the nullification of any deed of transfer, N100 million in general damages for trespass, and forfeiture of the building erected by the respondent under the doctrine of quid quid plantatur solo solo cedit.

The High Court of Delta State dismissed the appellant’s case, holding that the appellant failed to establish title to the land, while the respondent provided credible evidence of ownership. The trial court also applied the doctrine of acquiescence, finding that the appellant had stood by while the respondent developed the land without objection.

The appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal, which affirmed the decision of the trial court. Dissatisfied, the appellant further appealed to the Supreme Court.

HELD

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellant failed to prove his case according to law. The concurrent findings of the trial court and the Court of Appeal were upheld, as the appellant did not provide sufficient evidence to establish title to the land or to refute the respondent’s claim of ownership. The Court also affirmed the application of the doctrine of acquiescence, finding that the appellant had been lax in enforcing his rights, if any existed, by allowing the respondent to develop the land without objection.

ISSUES

1.Whether the Court of Appeal was right in holding that the appellant failed to establish a better title to the land in dispute.

2.Whether the Court of Appeal properly evaluated the evidence, especially in relation to the doctrine of acquiescence.

3.Whether the concurrent findings of the lower courts were perverse and unsupported by the evidence on record.

RATIONES DECIDENDI

COSTS – COURT’S DISCRETION IN AWARDING COSTS TO THE SUCCESSFUL PARTY

“The burden of proving ownership of land lies with the party asserting title. The appellant failed to establish his title through any of the recognized methods of proving title to land, such as by traditional evidence, acts of ownership, or long possession.” – Per Chioma Egondu Nwosu-Iheme JSC

PLEADINGS – PLEADINGS NOT SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE ARE DEEMED ABANDONED

“Averments in pleadings must be supported by evidence at trial. Where no evidence is led to support a pleading, it is deemed abandoned and cannot be relied upon to establish a case.” – Per Mohammed Lawal Garba JSC

DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE – BEST EVIDENCE RULE

“Documentary evidence is the best evidence of title to land. The respondent presented credible documentary evidence tracing his title to the land, while the appellant relied on weak oral testimony.” – Per Haruna Simon Tsammani JSC

PROOF OF TITLE – FIVE WAYS TO PROVE TITLE TO LAND

“Title to land may be proven through traditional evidence, production of documents of title, acts of ownership, long possession, or proof of possession of connected or adjacent land. The appellant failed to establish title through any of these methods.” – Per Emmanuel Akomaye Agim JSC

CROSS-EXAMINATION – FAILURE TO CROSS-EXAMINE DOES NOT MEAN AUTOMATIC ACCEPTANCE OF EVIDENCE

“Failure to cross-examine a witness on certain facts does not mean that those facts are automatically accepted. The facts must still be cogent and strong enough to sustain the case of the party relying on them.” – Per Jamilu Yammama Tukur JSC

ACQUIESCENCE – FAILURE TO OBJECT IN A TIMELY MANNER CAN RESULT IN LOSS OF RIGHTS

“Where a landowner stands by and allows another to develop the land in good faith without objection, the landowner may be estopped from asserting their rights. The appellant’s failure to object to the respondent’s occupation and development of the land for several years amounted to acquiescence.” – Per Chioma Egondu Nwosu-Iheme JSC

TRESPASS – CLAIMANT MUST PROVE EXCLUSIVE POSSESSION TO SUCCEED IN AN ACTION FOR TRESPASS

“To succeed in a claim for trespass, the claimant must prove that they had exclusive possession of the land at the time of the alleged trespass. The appellant failed to prove exclusive possession of the land.” – Per Emmanuel Akomaye Agim JSC

ADMISSION BY CONDUCT – FAILURE TO CHALLENGE EVIDENCE CAN AMOUNT TO ADMISSION

“Where a party fails to challenge the documentary evidence presented by the opposing party, such conduct may amount to an admission of the facts contained in the documents.” – Per Mohammed Lawal Garba JSC

QUIT CLAIM DEEDS – VALIDITY OF QUIT CLAIM DEEDS EXECUTED BY FAMILY REPRESENTATIVES

A quit claim deed executed by the rightful representatives of a family or community is valid and binding. The respondent’s title was supported by a quit claim deed executed by members of the appellant’s family, and the appellant failed to challenge the validity of this document.” – Per Haruna Simon Tsammani JSC

CONCURRENT FINDINGS – APPELLATE COURTS WILL NOT DISTURB CONCURRENT FINDINGS UNLESS THEY ARE PERVERSE

“Concurrent
findings of fact by the trial court and the Court of Appeal will not be
disturbed by the Supreme Court unless the findings are shown to be perverse or
unsupported by the evidence on record.” – Per Jamilu Yammama Tukur JSC

CLEAN HANDS DOCTRINE – PARTY SEEKING EQUITABLE RELIEF MUST COME WITH CLEAN HANDS

“A party seeking equitable relief must show that they have acted fairly and without delay. The appellant’s delay in asserting his rights over the land undermined his claim for equitable relief.” – Per Chioma Egondu Nwosu-Iheme JSC

COMMUNITY LAND – BURDEN OF PROOF ON CLAIMANT TO SHOW THAT LAND IS FAMILY OR COMMUNITY LAND

“Where a party claims that land is family or community land, the burden is on them to prove this assertion. The appellant failed to prove that the land in dispute was family land, while the respondent provided credible evidence of individual ownership.” – Per Emmanuel Akomaye Agim JSC

COSTS – COURT’S DISCRETION IN AWARDING COSTS TO THE SUCCESSFUL PARTY

“Costs are awarded at the discretion of the court to compensate the successful party for their expenses in litigation. The trial court’s award of costs in favor of the respondent was justified in this case.” – Per Haruna Simon Tsammani JSC

CASES CITED

STATUTES REFERRED TO

• Land Use Act, 1978
• Evidence Act, 2011
• Delta State High Court Civil Procedure Rules
• Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999
•      Supreme Court Act, 2004
  

  CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGEMENT