CORAM

---

---

PARTIES

---

PRINCESS BOLA JEGEDE

APPELLANTS 

---

MRS. ELIZABETH OLESHIN

RESPONDENTS 

---

AREA(S) OF LAW

---

Nil

 

---

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Plaintiff/Respondent at the High Court of Lagos State commenced an action by writ of summons against the Defendant/Appellant, praying for an injunction restraining the Defendant/Appellant from further acts of trespass on the land claimed to be owned by the Plaintiff/Respondent’s deceased husband, a declaration that the land belonged to the Plaintiff/Respondent and other orders.

The Plaintiff/Respondent was able to establish the title of the land through tendering in evidence the receipt of payment of the purchase price and subsequent undisturbed possession. The court after hearing the arguments of parties entered judgement for the Plaintiff/Respondent. Dissatisfied with the decision of the lower court, the Defendant/Appellant has appealed to this court.

 

---

HELD

---

Appeal Allowed

 

---

ISSUES

---

1. Whether the identity of the land in dispute was in issue, and if so, whether it was sufficiently proved by the Respondent to justify the declaration of title made in her favor by the lower Court?

2. Whether the lower Court was entitled to give Judgment in the Respondents favor in respect of 3 plots of land at Princess Aina Jegede Close off Awoniyi Elemo Street off Nwobodo Eze Close, Ajao Estate” which was not claimed by the Respondent and whether the Respondent proved her case for the declarations claimed in any event?

3. Whether having regard to the pleadings and evidence, the Respondent’s claim in trespass and for injunction ought not to fail?

 

---

RATIONES DECIDENDI

---

CLAIM FOR DECLARATION OF TITLE TO LAND – DUTY OF A PLAINTIFF IN A CLAIM FOR DECLARATION OF TITLE TO LAND

---

“In Yesufu Ogedengbe & Ors Vs. Chief J.B. Balogun & Ors (2007) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1039) 380, the Apex Court, per ONNOGHEN, JSC held as follows: “It is settled law that for a plaintiff to succeed in a claim for declaration of title to land, he must establish with certainty the identity of the land whose title he claims without which his claim must fail. It is also settled that the identity of the land in dispute is usually established by identifying the boundary features or marks and the people with whom the Claimant shares the boundaries of the said land with.

These features are usually established at the trial by calling evidence of the people who claim the land as theirs as well as evidence of those who share common boundaries with the said land, not forgetting the tendering of a survey plan of the disputed land in which the features constituting the boundary marks are identified as well as the people who share common boundaries with the land not forgetting other land marks such as farms, ruins, trees, footpaths, juju shrines, etc in the land in issue.” See: Also Ugwu & Ors. V. Agbowo (2014) LPELR-22894 (CA). PER T. ABUBAKAR, J.C.A 

 

---

PROOF OF TITLE TO LAND – DUTY ON A PLAINTIFF IN PROVING TITLE TO LAND

---

“The law is well settled that a plaintiff who seeks a declaration of title to land has the primary responsibility of proving unequivocally the precise area to which his claim relates where the identity of the land in dispute is a question in issue. In Ezekwu vs. Ukachukwu (2004) LPELR – 1217, 16 – 17, the Supreme Court of Nigeria, Per EDOZIE (JSC) held as follows: “In an action for declaration of title to land, the onus is on the plaintiff to establish with certainty the identity of the land in dispute to which his claim is related, This he can do in one of two ways, viz; by oral evidence describing with such degree of accuracy the said parcel of land in a manner that will guide a surveyor in producing a survey plan of the said land. See Baruwa v. Ogunshola (1938) 4 WACA 1259.

Another way and perhaps a better way of proving the identity and extent of the land claimed is by the Claimant filing a survey plan reflecting all the features of the land showing clearly the boundaries. See Awote v. Owodunni (No. 2) (1987) 2 NWLR (pt. 57) 367.” PER T. ABUBAKAR, J.C.A <foo

 

---

PLEADINGS-PARTIES ARE BOUND BY THEIR PLEADINGS

---

“The law is clear and unambiguous on the principle that parties are bound by their pleadings. However, it is also the law that a party is at liberty to abandon such averments which he considers unnecessary and irrelevant to his case. Mere averment in pleadings without proof of facts pleaded is no proof at all and same amounts to nothing. See Olorunfemi Vs Asho (2000) 2 NWLR (Pt. 643) 143; Amachukwu V Ojukwu (2009) LPLER – 8682 (CA); Nkuma Vs. Odih (2006) 3 SCNJ 31” PER T. ABUBAKAR, J.C.APLEADINGS-PARTIES ARE BOUND BY THEIR PLEADINGS “The law is clear and unambiguous on the principle that parties are bound by their pleadings. However, it is also the law that a party is at liberty to abandon such averments which he considers unnecessary and irrelevant to his case.

Mere averment in pleadings without proof of facts pleaded is no proof at all and same amounts to nothing. See Olorunfemi Vs Asho (2000) 2 NWLR (Pt. 643) 143; Amachukwu V Ojukwu (2009) LPLER – 8682 (CA); Nkuma Vs. Odih (2006) 3 SCNJ 31” PER T. ABUBAKAR, J.C.A

 

---

IDENTITY OF LAND – CHANGE OF THE DESCRIPTION OF LOCATION OF A LAND DOES NOT MATTER AS LONG AS THE LAND IS SAME AS THAT OCCUPIED BY THE DEFENDANT

---

“As a starting point, the law is well established on seemingly endless judicial authorities that the fact that different names are ascribed to a land or that the area where it is located is called different names is not fatal to the case of the party claiming, so long as the land claimed and described by the claimant is the same as the land occupied by the defendant, even where the name of the street has been changed

. See: Damini & Anor Vs. Abraham & Ors, (2001) 16 NWLR (Pt.738) 20 (2001) 6 SC 154, Aromire & Ors Vs. Awoyemi (1972) 1 ALL NLR (Pt.l) 101 @ 113, Aiyeola Vs. Pedro (2014) LPELR-22915 (SC) 67-68, G-B). PER T. ABUBAKAR, J.C.A <

 

---

PROOF OF IDENTITY OF THE LAND –MODE OF ESTABLISHING THE IDENTITY OF LAND

---

“A Plaintiff has the burden of establishing with precision the identity of the land in dispute and he can do this by adducing oral evidence describing with such degree of accuracy the said parcel of land in a manner that will guide a surveyor in producing a survey plan of the said land or by filing a survey plan reflecting all the features of the land showing clearly the boundaries. PER. T. ABUBAKAR, J.C.A

 

---

RELIEF -THE COURT HAS INHERENT POWERS TO GRANT THE RELIEFS A PARTY IS ENTITLED TO

---

“While it is my view that a court should not generally grant to a party a relief not claimed by that party, there is nothing wrong in a court, in the exercise of its inherent powers, granting to a party a relief which, in the circumstance of the case that party is entitled to. See: Fatb Ltd. & Anor Vs. Ezegbu & Others (Supra); Nneji & Ors Vs. Chukwu & Ors (1988) LPELR – 2058 (SC). PER T. ABUBAKAR, J.C.A 

 

---

LOCUS STANDI- MEANING OF LOCUS STANDI

---

“In this respect, locus standi denotes the legal capacity imbued in a person to enable him bring legal proceedings in a court of law. An essential aspect of locus standi is that it focuses on the party seeking to be heard with respect to the complaint before the court. Therefore, a party must be able to show that he has sufficient interest, which he seeks to enforce, or that his interest has been adversely affected. See Nyame vs. FRN [2010] 15 NWLR (Pt. 1216) 207. In Nnoli V Nnoli (2013) LPELR – 20633, 17 – 18, F – A, this court, per TSAMMANI, JCA held as follows:

person is said to have an interest in a thing when he has rights, advantages, duties, liabilities, loses, et al. connected with the thing. Whether present or future, ascertained or potential, provided that in the case of rights and duties, the possibility is not too remote…. PER T. ABUBAKAR, J.C.A

 

---

FINDINGS OF FACT OF LOWER COURT- ATTITUDE OF THE APPELLATE COURT TO FINDINGS OF FACT OF LOWER COURT

---

“It remains good law that this court shall not interfere with the findings of fact of the lower court unless same is perverse and does not flow from the facts relied upon. See Bamgboye & Ors Vs. Olarewaju (1991) LPELR – 735 (SC); Hamza Vs. Kure [2010] 10 NWLR (Pt. 1203) 630 SC. “PER. T. ABUBAKAR, J.C.A

 

---

CASES CITED

---

---

STATUTES REFERRED TO

---

1.Administration of Estates Laws of Lagos State

2.Court of Appeal Act

3.Evidence Act, Cap. E14, LFN 2004.

4.Land Use Act Cap. 202 Laws of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1990

 

---

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT

---