KAZEEM ANIMASHAUN V. THE STATE
February 28, 2025ARINOLA AKINLEYE V. THE STATE
February 28, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (2024-07) Legalpedia 16032 (CA)
In the Court of Appeal
HOLDEN AT IBADAN
Fri Jul 12, 2024
Suit Number: AB/243/2016
CORAM
HON. JUSITICE O.E. WILLIAMS-DAWODU
HON. JUSTICE BALKISU BELLO ALIYU
HON. JUSTICE MUSLIM SULE HASSAN
PARTIES
1. MR. WAIDI OSENI OGUNBAMBI
2. MR. SEMIU RASHEED OGUNBAMBI
3. MR. MORUF ISAMOTU
4.MR. AMIDU
5. MR. MUJAIDU ADENIKAN
6. MRS. MONSURAT (NEE OGUNBAMBI) (FOR THEMSELVES AND ON BEHALF OF OGUNBAMBI FAMILY)
APPELLANTS
1. MR. ISIAKA SHOWUNMI SOETAN
2.MR. MUSIBAU SHOWUNMI SOETAN
3. MR. KAZEEM SHOWUNMI SOETAN
4. MR. JIMOH OYEKANMI FATOKI
5. MR. MICHAEL OYEKANMI FATOKI
6. MR. SULAIMON BABATUNDE FATOKI
7.MRS. AYEDUN (NEE FATOKI)
8. MR. AREMU PETER JOODA
9. MRS. AISHAT SOYEJU (NEE JOODA)
10. MR. MONDAY PETER JOODA
11. MR. ELIJAH AKINGBADE SOJI
12. MR. AFOLABI SHORUNKE SOJI
13. MR. KASHIMAWO ADENEKAN SOJI
14. ATOKE OLAYANJU
15. KEHINDE SOGBAYINKE
16. EMILI IDOWU
17. MR. OLUBODE ODUNLAMI
18. MR. KOLAWOLE ODUNLAMI
19. MR. RASHEED KUYE SHODIYA (FOR HIMSELF AND ON BEHALF OF PA ODE FAMILY OF ODE VILLAGE NEAR MAGBAGBEODUN VILLAGE, OBAFEMI OWODE, OGUN STATE)
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
Land Law
Customary Tenancy
Title to Land
Practice and Procedure
Evidence
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The appellants, Waidi Ogunbambi and others, claimed ownership of a large parcel of land in Ode Village, Obafemi Owode Local Government, Ogun State, which they alleged the respondents had abandoned for over 25 years. The appellants sought a declaration of ownership and an injunction to prevent further trespass by the respondents. The respondents, on the other hand, argued that they had continuously occupied the land based on customary title inherited from their ancestors. They also asserted that they had leased portions of the land over the years, thereby exercising acts of ownership. The trial court ruled in favor of the respondents, finding that they had proven their title and possession over portions of the disputed land. Dissatisfied, the appellants appealed on multiple grounds, arguing that the trial court erred in its evaluation of the evidence and in dismissing their counterclaim.
HELD
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and affirmed the decision of the trial court. It held that the respondents had adequately proven their title to the portions of land in dispute through documentary evidence and acts of long possession. The court also found that the appellants had failed to provide credible evidence to support their claim of ownership over the entire land. The respondents’ witnesses were found to be credible, and their evidence was consistent with the documentary evidence presented.
ISSUES
1. Whether the trial court was correct in awarding title over portions of the disputed land to the respondents ?
2. Whether the trial court was right in dismissing the appellants’ counterclaim for a declaration of title to the entire land ?
3. Whether the trial court properly evaluated the evidence, especially in relation to the testimony of DW4 ?
4. Whether the trial court’s judgment was against the weight of evidence ?
RATIONES DECIDENDI
PROVING TITLE TO LAND – THE BURDEN ON THE PARTY CLAIMING TITLE TO LAND
“In a claim for title to land, the claimant must prove their title through one of the recognized methods, which include traditional history, documentary evidence, acts of ownership, or long possession. In this case, the respondents successfully traced their title to their ancestors, and the evidence adduced, including survey plans and documentary evidence, supported their claim of ownership. The appellants, on the other hand, failed to discharge the burden of proof required to establish their ownership over the entire disputed land.”
– Per Muslim Sule Hassan, JCA
RIGHTS OF CUSTOMARY TENANTS – OBLIGATIONS OF CUSTOMARY TENANTS IN LAND LAW
“Customary tenants are entitled to occupy land as long as they comply with the obligations imposed by customary law. In this case, the respondents were found to have fulfilled their obligations under customary law and had not abandoned the land as alleged by the appellants. The appellants failed to provide evidence of any breach or abandonment, and the respondents’ tenancy rights remained intact.”
– Per O. E. Williams-Dawodu, JCA
WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE – BURDEN OF PROOF IN LAND OWNERSHIP CASES
“In civil cases, the standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities. The trial court correctly found that the respondents had discharged this burden by presenting consistent oral and documentary evidence. The appellants’ case was weakened by inconsistencies in their evidence and the lack of credible documentary support for their claims.”
– Per Balkisu Bello Aliyu, JCA
APPEALS – WHEN AN APPEAL WILL BE DISMISSED FOR LACK OF MERIT
“An appeal will only succeed if the appellant can demonstrate that the trial court made an error in law or fact that resulted in a miscarriage of justice. In this case, the appellants failed to show any such error. The trial court’s findings were based on a proper evaluation of the evidence, and there was no basis for interfering with the decision.”
– Per Muslim Sule Hassan, JCA
CREDIBILITY OF WITNESSES – DETERMINING THE RELIABILITY OF ORAL TESTIMONY
“The trial court is in the best position to assess the credibility of witnesses, having had the opportunity to observe their demeanor during testimony. In this case, the court found the respondents’ witnesses to be credible, as their testimonies were consistent and supported by documentary evidence. The appellants’ witnesses, particularly DW4, were less reliable due to inconsistencies in their testimonies.”
– Per O. E. Williams-Dawodu, JCA
REVOCATION OF CUSTOMARY TENANCY – CONDITIONS FOR REVOCATION
“A customary tenancy cannot be revoked arbitrarily. There must be evidence of abandonment, misuse, or breach of obligations by the customary tenant. The appellants’ claim that the respondents had abandoned the land for over 25 years was not supported by credible evidence. The respondents were able to show continuous occupation and fulfillment of their obligations under customary law.”
– Per Balkisu Bello Aliyu, JCA
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IN LAND DISPUTES – ROLE IN PROVING TITLE
Documentary evidence, such as survey plans and title documents, carries significant weight in land disputes. In this case, the respondents presented reliable documentary evidence, including survey plans that clearly demarcated their portions of the land. This evidence was unchallenged by the appellants, further strengthening the respondents’ case.”
– Per Muslim Sule Hassan, JCA
ASSESSING ORAL EVIDENCE IN LAND CASES – CONSISTENCY AS A KEY FACTOR
“Oral evidence must be credible and consistent to carry weight in land disputes. The trial court found the oral testimonies of the respondents’ witnesses credible and consistent with the documentary evidence. The appellants’ oral evidence, however, was marred by contradictions, which weakened their case.”
– Per Balkisu Bello Aliyu, JCA
TRESPASS TO LAND – PROOF REQUIRED TO ESTABLISH TRESPASS
To succeed in a claim for trespass, the claimant must prove that they have a valid title to the land and that the defendant unlawfully entered the land. In this case, the respondents successfully proved their title to portions of the disputed land and established that the appellants had unlawfully entered the land, justifying the claim for trespass.”
– Per O. E. Williams-Dawodu, JCA
ADMISSIBILITY OF DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE – REQUIREMENTS FOR ADMITTING EVIDENCE
“For documentary evidence to be admissible, it must meet the requirements set out by law. The appellants sought to introduce documents that were not properly authenticated or supported by oral testimony. The trial court correctly excluded these documents, as they failed to meet the requirements for admissibility.”
– Per Muslim Sule Hassan, JCA
NON-COMPLIANCE WITH COURT PROCEDURE – EFFECT OF FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS
Where a party fails to comply with procedural requirements mandated by statute, such non-compliance may result in the dismissal of the claim. In this case, the appellants failed to follow certain court procedures regarding the filing of documents, and this failure was one of the reasons why their case could not succeed at the trial court.”
– Per Muslim Sule Hassan, JCA
PROOF OF BOUNDARIES – IMPORTANCE OF ACCURATE BOUNDARIES IN LAND DISPUTES
“In disputes over land, accurate proof of boundaries is critical. A claimant must provide clear and unambiguous evidence of the boundaries of the land they claim. In this case, the respondents successfully established the boundaries of the portions they claimed through reliable survey plans, while the appellants failed to prove the boundaries of the entire land they claimed.”
– Per O. E. Williams-Dawodu, JCA
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE VS ORAL EVIDENCE – WHEN DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE WILL OVERRIDE ORAL EVIDENCE
“Documentary evidence, when properly admitted, will override conflicting oral evidence, especially in land disputes. In this case, the survey plans and other documents provided by the respondents were clear and precise, while the oral evidence presented by the appellants was inconsistent and contradictory. The court rightly gave more weight to the documentary evidence.”
– Per Balkisu Bello Aliyu, JCA
CASES CITED
Not Available
STATUTES REFERRED TO
