CORAM

---

ABDU ABOKI (PJ)

HON. JUSTICE JAMES SHEHU ABIRIYI

---

PARTIES

---

PAUL MBODAN APPELLANTS

---

SILAS N. DABAI RESPONDENTS

---

AREA(S) OF LAW

---

---

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Plaintiff/Respondent owns a land in dispute which was first cleared by his father between 1980 and 1983. Before the father of the Respondent cleared the land, he consulted and notified the elders of the area of his intention to acquire it as no one had ever cleared or cultivated the said land. Upon obtaining consent from the elders, the Plaintiff/Respondent’s father cleared the virgin land and exercised exclusive right of ownership of the land. However, a portion of land was given to the living faith church to erect a structure before the Appellant trespassed into the land. However, the Appellant denied the claim of the Respondent and stated that the land was originally deforested and converted into a farmland by one Sunoma in the early 1960s. The Defendant/Appellant further alleged that he inherited the land according to Kilba custom upon the death of Sunoma who had no child of his own. The Plaintiff/Respondent then filed an action in the High Court of Adamawa State against the Defendant/Appellant for declaration of title to the land in dispute, an order of perpetual injunction and general damages and cost of filing the suit. After consideration of the evidence adduced by the parties, the trial court entered judgment in favour of the Plaintiff/Respondent. Dissatisfied with the decision of the trial court, the Defendant/Appellant filed a notice of appeal contending that the trial court erred in law when it conferred title of the disputed land on the Plaintiff/Respondent and that the Plaintiff/Respondent failed to prove his title to the disputed land in accordance with his pleading and as required by law.

---

HELD

---

Appeal Dismissed

---

ISSUES

---

Whether the plaintiff/respondent proved title to the disputed land in accordance with his pleadings and as required by law in the circumstances of this case to justify the judgment of the trial court which conferred title to the disputed land on him? (Distilled from grounds 1, 2 and 5 of the grounds of appeal). Whether the plaintiff/respondent proved trespass to the disputed land against the defendant/appellant as pleaded in his statement of claim and as required by law to justify the award of damages for trespass that was made in his favour by the learned trial Judge? (Distilled from ground 3 of the grounds of appeal).

---

RATIONES DECIDENDI

---

PROOF – BURDEN AND STANDARD OF PROOF IN CIVIL CASES

---

“By virtue of Sections 133 and 134 of the Evidence Act, in civil cases the burden of proof is on the party who asserts a fact to prove same for he who asserts must prove. The standard of proof required is on the preponderance of evidence and balance of probabilities. A party in a civil case must prove his/its case on credible evidence of his/its witnesses and is not at liberty in law to make a case or rely on the weakness of the defendant’s case in order to succeed. See Daodu vs. NNPC (1998) 2 NWLR (Pt. 538) 355 and Agbi vs. Ogbeh (2006) 11 NWLR (Pt. 990) 65.”

---

TITLE TO LAND – MODE OF ESTABLISHING TITLE TO LAND

---

“Since 1976 when Idundun vs. Okumagba was decided by the Supreme Court, the Courts have held that title to land can be established by traditional evidence; (2) Production of documents of title duly authenticated in the sense that their due execution must be proved; (3) By positive acts of ownership extending over a sufficient length of time; (4) By acts of long possession and enjoyment of the land; (5) By Proof of possession of connected or adjacent land in circumstances rendering it probable that the owner of such connected or adjacent land would in addition, be owner of the land in dispute. The law is that the establishment of one of the ways enumerated above is sufficient proof of ownership of the land. See Idundun vs. Okumagba (1976) 9 – 10 SC 337, Ayoola vs. Odofin (1984) 11 SC 120 and Nkado vs. Obiano (1997) 5 NWLR (Pt. 503) 31.”

---

DECLARATORY RELIEFS – REQUIREMENT FOR THE GRANT OF DECLARATORY RELIEFS

---

“A declaratory relief will be granted where the plaintiff is entitled to the relief in the fullest meaning of the word. It is a requirement of the law that the person seeking the declaratory relief must plead and prove his claim for declaratory relief without relying on the evidence called by the defendant. Such declaratory relief is not granted even on admission by the defendant. However, there is nothing wrong in a plaintiff taking advantage of any evidence adduced by the defence which tends to establish the plaintiff’s title. See Anyaru vs. Mandilas Ltd (2007) 4 SCNJ 288, Chukwumah vs. S.P.D.C (Nig) Ltd (1993) LPELR-864 SC page 64 – 65, Matanmi & Ors vs. Dada & Anor (2013) LPELR-19929, Oguanuhu vs. Chiegboka (2013) 2 SCNJ 693 and Akinboni & Ors vs. Akintope & Ors (2016) LPELR-40184”.

---

DISCREPANCIES IN THE EVIDENCE OF A WITNESS–ATTITUDE OF THE COURT TO DISCREPANCIES IN THE EVIDENCE OF A WITNESS

---

“The Courts have held that discrepancies are to be expected in the evidence of witnesses and that their absence is the usual accompaniment of a concocted story.
“Imperfection in human recollection is quite normal. Moreover, among primitive people it is often more important to consider the whole story than the detailed account.” See Oposi vs. State (1971) 1 NMLR 315.

---

CASES CITED

---

None

---

STATUTES REFERRED TO

---

Evidence Act|

---

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT

---