CORAM

---

Joseph Olubunmi Kayode Oyewole Justice Court of Appeal

Asma’u Musa Mainoma Justice Court of Appeal

M. A. Ramat Justice Court of Appeal

---

PARTIES

---

REGITEX GLOBAL RESOURCES LTD

APPELLANTS 

---

1. A.A. OIL COMPANY LTD

2. KINGIMISO NIGERIA LTD (DEFENDING THROUGH ITS ATTORNEY HARMONY PROPERTIES LTD)

3. HON. MINISTER, FEDERAL CAPITAL TERRITORY, ABUJA

4. FEDERAL CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

RESPONDENTS 

---

AREA(S) OF LAW

---

LAND LAW, PROPERTY LAW, EVIDENCE LAW, CIVIL PROCEDURE, TITLE TO LAND, LAND USE ACT

 

---

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Appellant claimed ownership of Plot 164 at Katampe Extension based on a 2009 Certificate of Occupancy issued to its vendor. The 2nd Respondent counterclaimed, asserting prior title based on a 2002 allocation. The trial court found for the 2nd Respondent, holding that its earlier allocation gave it better title. The Appellant appealed, arguing the parties were claiming different parcels of land and that the 2nd Respondent’s documents were improperly certified.

 

---

HELD

---

1. The appeal was dismissed as lacking merit.

2. The court held that parties were ad idem on the identity of the land based on identical beacon numbers.

3. The 2nd Respondent’s prior allocation in 2002 gave better title than Appellant’s 2009 certificate.

4. Costs of N250,000 awarded to 1st and 2nd Respondents.

 

---

ISSUES

---

1. Whether the lower Court misconstrued the case regarding the identity of the land claimed by parties.?

2. Whether the lower Court ought to have relied on Appellant’s unchallenged evidence in granting its reliefs.

3. Whether the lower Court ought to have dismissed the 2nd Respondent’s counter-claim for lack of credible evidence.?

 

---

RATIONES DECIDENDI

---

PROOF OF TITLE – METHODS OF ESTABLISHING OWNERSHIP:

---

“To succeed in their respective claims as contending parties seeking declaration of title to land, they must establish their entitlement via any of the five proven methods outlined in IDUNDUN VS OKUMAGBA (1976) 9-10 SC 227…”- Per J.O.K. Oyewole, J.C.A.

 

---

DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE – LINKING TITLE:

---

“Mere production of documents of title alone without more is insufficient to establish title to land unless in addition the root of title is traced to one whose ownership of title is established.”- Per J.O.K. Oyewole, J.C.A.

 

---

CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY – REBUTTABLE PRESUMPTION:

---

“A Certificate of Occupancy is only prima facie evidence of title to land or exclusive possession of land. Consequently, if it is successfully challenged, it can be nullified.- Per J.O.K. Oyewole, J.C.A.

 

---

IDENTITY OF LAND – BEACON NUMBERS:

---

“While the descriptions differed in dimension and location, the parties were ad idem on beacon numbers… There was therefore no dispute in the pleadings as to the identity of the land in dispute between the parties.”- Per J.O.K. Oyewole, J.C.A.

 

---

CERTIFICATION OF DOCUMENTS – PRESUMPTION OF REGULARITY:

---

“Pursuant to Section 146 of the Evidence Act (supra) these documents enjoy a presumption of regularity which may only be rebutted by credible evidence.”- Per J.O.K. Oyewole, J.C.A.

 

---

PRIOR GRANT – EFFECT ON SUBSEQUENT ALLOCATION:

---

“The presumption in favour of the Certificate of Occupancy may also be vitiated or rebutted by the existence of an earlier unrevoked grant of the same parcel of land to a different person.”- Per J.O.K. Oyewole, J.C.A.

 

---

PLEADINGS – CONSISTENCY OF CASE:

---

“Parties must be consistent in their case and cannot set up a case on appeal different from what was presented at trial.”- Per J.O.K. Oyewole, J.C.A.

 

---

PROOF OF TITLE – DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE:

---

“Where a party seeking declaration of title to land places reliance on documents of title then this necessitates that the Court must inquire into some of the questions…” – Per J.O.K. Oyewole, J.C.A.

 

---

COUNTER CLAIM – EFFECT OF NO DEFENCE:

---

“The counter-claim of the 2nd Respondent was predicated on the averments and evidence upon which the main claim was contested and the success thereof must necessarily inure to the benefit of the 2nd Respondent with respect to the counter-claim.”- Per J.O.K. Oyewole, J.C.A.

 

---

PRIORITY OF INTEREST – FIRST IN TIME:

---

“Where the plaintiff and the defendant trace their title to an established owner or authority, the 1st to purchase the land is regarded as the owner of the land. He who is first in time has a better claim in law and equity.” – Per J.O.K. Oyewole, J.C.A.

 

---

REVOCATION OF TITLE – NOTICE REQUIREMENT:

---

“By virtue of Section 28 of the Land Use Act, where title to a piece of land is revoked, it is mandatory to put the title holder on notice about the revocation.”- Per J.O.K. Oyewole, J.C.A.

 

---

CERTIFIED DOCUMENTS – COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENTS:

---

“A perusal of each of the said documents however reveals that they were all duly certified in accordance with the outlined provisions of the Evidence Act with the receipt showing payment for the said certifications equally admitted in evidence.”- Per J.O.K. Oyewole, J.C.A.

 

---

DESCRIPTION OF LAND – IDENTIFICATION:

---

“The description on Exhibit X was reinforced in Exhibit X1 the letter of offer and conclusively settled in Exhibit X3, the site plan which not only describes the said parcel of land but contains the survey beacons pleaded by both parties.” – Per J.O.K. Oyewole, J.C.A.

 

---

CASES CITED

---

---

STATUTES REFERRED TO

---

1. Land Use Act

2. Evidence Act, 2011

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

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGEMENT