CORAM

---

SIR BIOBELE ABRAHAM GEORGEWILL…… JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL

ISAH BATURE GAFAI…………………………… JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL

NEHIZENA IDEMUDIA AFOLABI …………….. JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL

---

PARTIES

---

1. MR. RICHARD IKEOHA

2. MR. MUSA JOHN IYAKWARI

(Defending for himself and on behalf of members of the family and Estate of Late John Iyakwari)

APPELLANTS 

---

1. CHESTERMAN NIGERIA LIMITED

2. COMMISSIONER FOR LANDS AND  URBAN DEVELOPMENT, NASARAWA STATE

3. ATTORNEY GENERAL AND COMMISSIONER FOR JUSTICE NASARAWA STATE

4. OBINNA LINUS

5. CHIKWADO MISHARK OGUERI

6. MR. SAMUEL OJIK

RESPONDENTS 

---

AREA(S) OF LAW

---

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, LAND LAW, PROPERTY LAW, DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE, EVIDENCE LAW, BURDEN OF PROOF, APPEAL, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE, ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, CONTRACT LAW, ACQUISITION OF LAND, CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY, SALE OF LAND

 

---

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The dispute arose from competing claims over 8 plots of farmland at Kugbo, within Karu Local Government Area of Nasarawa State. The 2nd Appellant, as customary owner, sold the farmland to the 1st Respondent (Chesterman Nigeria Limited) in 1999 for N720,000. Shortly after the sale, Nasarawa State Government earmarked the area including the disputed land for a race course project and offered compensation of N10,000 per plot. The 1st Respondent, dissatisfied with the compensation amount, demanded alternative plots from the 2nd Appellant, who allegedly provided alternative land behind Karu International Market while cancelling the original agreement.

However, the government did not utilize the land for the race course and allegedly returned it to the 2nd Appellants, who then partitioned and sold portions to the 1st Appellant and 4th, 5th, and 6th Respondents. The 1st Respondent maintained that it remained the lawful owner of the original land, having obtained Right of Occupancy No. 6664 and subsequently a Certificate of Occupancy from Nasarawa State Government. The 1st Respondent claimed to have paid ground rent from 1999 to 2015 and submitted building plans when the 2nd Appellant sold portions of the disputed land to other parties without consent in 2015.

The trial court delivered judgment in favor of the 1st Respondent on September 27, 2021, dismissing the Appellants’ counterclaim. The Appellants appealed, challenging the trial court’s decision to expunge certain documentary evidence and questioning whether the 1st Respondent had proved sufficient title to warrant declaration in its favor.

 

---

HELD

---

1. The appeal was dismissed.

2. The Court of Appeal upheld the trial court’s decision in favor of the 1st Respondent.

3. The court held that the 1st Respondent had successfully proved its title to the disputed land through documentary evidence.

4. The court found that the 2nd Appellant had no valid title to transfer to subsequent purchasers after having already divested all interest in the land to the 1st Respondent.

5. The court applied the principle that documentary evidence takes precedence over oral evidence.

6. The maxim “nemo dat quod non habet” (one cannot give what one does not have) was applied against the 2nd Appellant.

 

---

ISSUES

---

1. Whether the trial judge was right when in his judgment he expunged Exhibits CNL16 and CNL17 from the proceedings for being irrelevant to the proceedings and entered judgment in favour of the Plaintiff?

2. Whether upon the proper evaluation of the totality of the evidence placed before the trial court, it could be said that the Plaintiff has proved its title to the land to warrant the declaration of title in its favour?

3. Whether by the facts and circumstances of this case and on the preponderance of evidence before this court, the 1st Respondent (Plaintiff at the lower court) could be said to have proved its case to be entitled to the reliefs sought?

 

---

RATIONES DECIDENDI

---

RELEVANCE OF DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE – EXPUNGING OF EXHIBITS

---

Any document placed before the court by any of the parties which tend to establish title or to impugn or discredit the title of the other party is relevant evidence to the proceedings. – Per Nehizena Idemudia Afolabi, JCA

 

---

LEGAL BURDEN OF PROOF – ASSERTION OF FACTS

---

The legal burden to prove the existence of facts upon which the success of his case depends rests squarely on the Claimant/Plaintiff who assets such facts, the court went further to state, ‘by virtue of Section 131(1) of the Evidence Act, 2011 whoever desires any court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability depended on the existence of facts which he assets shall prove that those facts exist. – Per Nehizena Idemudia Afolabi, JCA

 

---

BURDEN OF PROOF IN SUIT OR PROCEEDING – SECTION 132 EVIDENCE ACT

---

Also, by virtue of Section 132 of the Evidence Act, 2011, the burden of proof in a suit or proceeding lies on that person who would fail if no evidence at all were given on either side. – Per Nehizena Idemudia Afolabi, JCA

 

---

PROOF OF TITLE TO LAND – IDUNDUN V. OKUMAGBA PRINCIPLES

---

The locus classicus case with regards to prove of title in land matters is the case of IDUNDUN V. OKUMAGBA (1976) 9 — 10 SC page 227 wherein the Supreme Court of Nigeria, laid down the now settled principle of law on the various ways a claimant may establish title to land and these are as follows: 1. By Traditional evidence 2. By the Production of documents of title which must of course be duly authenticated 3. Acts of positive ownership by the person claiming the land 4. Acts of long Possession 5. Proof of Possession of connected or adjacent land. – Per Nehizena Idemudia Afolabi, JCA

 

---

GOVERNMENT ACQUISITION OF LAND – VESTING OF OWNERSHIP

---

Even if indeed the said land was duly acquired by the state government and a compensation of N10, 000 (Ten Thousand Naira) per plot paid as the appellants herein would want us to believe, can we then say that the Iyakwari family still had title over the said land not to even talk of being able to later transfer title to someone else, particularly the 1st appellant? At this point was the ownership of the said parcel of land not now firmly vested in the state government? The answer to this would be an emphatic Yes. – Per Nehizena Idemudia Afolabi, JCA

 

---

REVERSAL OF TITLE AFTER GOVERNMENT ACQUISITION – BURDEN OF PROOF

---

Even if the acquired land wasn’t used for any purpose by the state government, ownership in this situation remains vested firmly in the state government unless there is evidence of a valid transfer from the government back to the family. This is the only position known to Law in situations of this nature. The onus of proving such reversal of title is firmly on the party asserting such facts.– Per Nehizena Idemudia Afolabi, JCA

 

---

PARTIAL ACQUISITION OF LAND – RIGHT OF OCCUPANCY

---

This scenario then makes it more believable that indeed there was an intention by the Nasarawa State Government to acquire the land in dispute for a state government owned project but not all of the parcel of land was acquired and the ownership of the unacquired portion of the land remained with the 1st respondent.– Per Nehizena Idemudia Afolabi, JCA

 

---

DUE DILIGENCE IN LAND PURCHASE – SEARCH AT LANDS REGISTRY

---

Furthermore, the 1st Appellant clearly admitted that he failed to do his due diligence before he purchased from the 2nd appellant the land under dispute as clearly stated on page 380 of the record of proceedings where he admitted that he only did a local investigation of the land but failed to conduct a search at the lands registry. – Per Nehizena Idemudia Afolabi, JCA

 

---

DIVESTMENT OF INTEREST IN LAND – NEMO DAT QUOD NON HABET

---

In all of these I will also again reiterate one trite principle of law which is that after a party has fully diverted himself of all interest in land, no rights vests in him to deal with such land by way of further alienation any more. – Per Nehizena Idemudia Afolabi, JCA

 

---

COMPETING INTERESTS FROM COMMON GRANTOR – PRIOR TEMPORE POTIOR JURE

---

Where as in the instant case there are competing interests by two or more parties claiming title to the same land from a common grantor, the position both at law and in equity is to such competing interests will prima facie rank in or of their creation based on the maxim quid prior tempore potior est jure i.e. he who is earlier in time is stronger in law.– Per Nehizena Idemudia Afolabi, JCA

 

---

TRANSFER WITHOUT TITLE – NEMO DAT QUOD NON HABET PRINCIPLE

---

Furthermore, the Latin maxim of Nemo dat quod non habet comes into play. The 2nd Appellant had nothing to transfer to the 1st Appellant when he purported to do so as all interest his family had in and over that parcel of land had clearly become vested in the 1st respondent and they have woefully failed to prove or establish otherwise. – Per Nehizena Idemudia Afolabi, JCA

 

---

DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE OVER ORAL EVIDENCE – PRECEDENCE

---

In all, it is trite that documentary evidence at all times takes precedence over and above all evidence especially oral.– Per Nehizena Idemudia Afolabi, JCA

 

---

ROOT OF TITLE AND CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY – DOCUMENTARY PROOF

---

The 1st respondent has before the trial court shown by documentary evidence his root of title and had gone further to obtain a Right of Occupancy and a Certificate of Occupancy over the land. – Per Nehizena Idemudia Afolabi, JCA

 

---

CASES CITED

---

---

STATUTES REFERRED TO

---

1. Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended)

2. Evidence Act 2011

3. Land Use Act

4. Nasarawa State Land Administration Laws

 

---

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT