Legalpedia Citation: (2009) Legalpedia (SC) 11397
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Fri Mar 20, 2009
Suit Number: SC. 132/2003
CORAM
GEORGE ADESOLA OGUNTADE, JSC (Lead Judgment), JUSTICE SUPREME COURT
GEORGE ADESOLA OGUNTADE, JSC (Lead Judgment), JUSTICE SUPREME COURT
PARTIES
MRS. RONKE OMIYAL APPELLANTS
MOBOLAJI MACAULAY
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
Both parties traced their titles to land to the same family. The appellant relied on 2 decisions of the Court. The trial court gave judgment in favor of the appellant. The respondent successfully appealed to the Court of Appeal. The appellant has appealed the lower court’s decision.
HELD
Appeal dismissed
ISSUES
1. Whether the lower court was right in holding that exhibits M and Ml were not binding on the respondents to constitute estoppel per rem (sic) judicata”?
2. Whether the lower court did not misdirect itself on the facts that the location and identity of the land in dispute were not in doubt to justify its holding that the land purchased by Somefun exhibit ‘C’ falls within the land in exhibit C2?
3. Whether from the facts of this case as contained in the printed record, it can be said that the appellants’ evidence as to whose title to the land in dispute lay in contradictory as against that of the Respondents to justify the holding of the lower court that the appellant has not proved a better title to the land in dispute?
4. Whether the lower court was right in raising and resolving suo motu, the issue of the validity of the Certificate of Occupancy held by the appellant in respect of the land in dispute and holding that the said Certificate of Occupancy is null and void.?
5. Whether given the totality of the evidence adduced at the trial court, the award of N410,000.00 against the appellant as damages for trespass can be justified in law?
RATIONES DECIDENDI
WHEN PRIORITIES APPLY TO LAND TITLED DOCUMENTS
Where two or more competing documents of title upon which parties to a land dispute, rely for their claim of title to such land which originated from a common grantor, the doctrine of priorities applies. Per Ogbuagu, JSC
REGISTRATION OF A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY DOES NOT CURE IRREGULARITY IN ITS PROCUREMENT
The registration of a Certificate of Occupancy (as was done by the Appellant), does not and cannot, cure or validate any irregularities in its procurement. Per Ogbuagu, JSC
EFFECT OF STANDING-BY
If an individual was content to stand by while his battle was fought and concluded by another in same interest he must be and is indeed, bound by the result and should not be allowed to re-open the case. Per Oguntade, JSC
WHEN A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY WILL BE VALID
For a Certificate of Occupancy under the Act to be therefore valid, there must not be in existence at the time the certificate was issued, a Statutory or Customary owner of the land in issue or dispute who was not divested of his legal interest to the land prior to the grant. Per Ogbuagu, JSC
CASES CITED
1. Mercantile Investment and General Trust Company v. River State Trust, Loan and Agency Co. [1894] Chancery Division 578
2. Ogunleye v. Oni (1990) 2 NWLR (Pt.135) 745
3. Olohunde & anor. v. Prof. Adeyoju (2000) 6 SCNJ. 470
4. Datoesoem Dakat v. Musa Dashe (1997) 12 SCNJ. 90
5. Romaine v. Romaine (1992) 4 NWLR (Pt.238) 650; (1992) 5 SCNJ. 25
STATUTES REFERRED TO
1. Land Use Act