CORAM

---

Yargata Byenchit Nimpar -Justice of the Court of Appeal

Binta Fatima Zubairu-Justice of the Court of Appeal

Uwabunkeonye Onwosi -Justice of the Court of Appeal

---

PARTIES

---

ROYAL SALT NIGERIA LIMITED

APPELLANTS 

---

OTUNBA OLUGBENGA OLATUNJI FASHEUN

RESPONDENTS 

---

AREA(S) OF LAW

---

LAND LAW, PROPERTY LAW, EVIDENCE LAW, CIVIL PROCEDURE, TRESPASS, OWNERSHIP OF LAND, CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY, LAND ACQUISITION, PRIORITY OF TITLE, POSSESSORY RIGHTS

 

---

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Appellant was the Defendant at the trial Court while the Respondent was the Claimant. The dispute involves a parcel of land measuring approximately 1.017 acres lying along Lagos/Ibadan Expressway, Ileke Village in Obafemi Owode Local Government Area of Ogun State. The Respondent claimed to have purchased the land in 2006 from Akindele Family and subsequently obtained a Certificate of Occupancy dated 1st March, 2018, registered as No. 10 at page 10 in Volume 1058. The Respondent built a perimeter fence and erected a gate on the land, and also used it for farming and grazing.

The Appellant contended that the Certificate of Occupancy issued to the Respondent was not in respect of the Appellant’s land. The Appellant claimed to have approached the Bureau of Lands and Survey, Abeokuta, to prepare a composite plan showing that the Appellant’s land and the Respondent’s land were different parcels. The Appellant maintained that its land was at Ayetoro, while the Respondent’s land was at Mowe, and that they were miles apart.

The Respondent sued the Appellant for trespass, claiming that the Appellant had illegally entered his property, destroyed his fence and gate, and erected obnoxious materials, pipes, and equipment without consent. The Respondent sought declarations of ownership, damages for trespass (N150,000,000), general damages (N100,000,000), and costs (N10,000,000).

 

---

HELD

---

1.The appeal was dismissed and the judgment of the High Court of Justice, Ogun State, delivered by Honorable Justice O.A. Onafowokan on 18th January, 2022, in Suit No: AB/367/2019 was affirmed.

2.The Court held that the Respondent adequately identified the land in dispute as required by law, even though both parties knew the land in dispute.

3.The Court found that both parties traced their root of title to the same source (Akindele family), but the Respondent’s Certificate of Occupancy was issued earlier (1st March, 2018) than the Appellant’s (9th August, 2018), making the Respondent’s title better.

4.The Court held that the Respondent was in active possession of the land and was entitled to payment of compensation for trespass.

5.Cost of N300,000 was awarded to the Respondent.

 

---

ISSUES

---

1.Whether the Respondent as Claimant before the trial Court identified the land in dispute with certainty to warrant the grant of ownership in his favor.?

2.Whether the Respondent as Claimant before the trial Court proved ownership of the land in dispute.?

3.Whether the learned trial Judge was right to have granted an order of perpetual injunction against the Appellant.?

 

---

RATIONES DECIDENDI

---

IDENTITY OF LAND – WHEN IDENTITY OF LAND IS IN ISSUE:

---

“It is trite law that the plaintiff is only saddled with the responsibility of proving the identity of the land where the identity of the land is in issue. The identity of the land would only be in issue if the defendant in his pleadings disputed either the area, size or its location. See GBADAMOSI VS DAIRO (2007) LPELR-1315 (SC) where it was held: ‘It is now settled law that requires no citation of any authority that the identity of land in a land dispute will only be in issue if and only if the defendant in his statement of defence makes it. If he disputes specifically either the area or the location or the features shown in the plaintiff’s plan, then the identity of the land becomes an issue to be tried.'” – Per BINTA FATIMA ZUBAIRU, J.C.A.

 

---

IDENTITY OF LAND – WHEN PROOF OF IDENTITY BECOMES UNNECESSARY:

---

“Generally, a plaintiff’s claim for declaration of title to land and/or injunction pursuant to claim for damages consequent upon trespass by the Defendant succeeds only where the identity of the land in respect of which the reliefs are sought is certain. However, where the identity of the land is not in issue in the sense, that parties know exactly the identity of the land, the subject matter of the dispute between them, the requirement that the plaintiff and or parties prove(s) the identity of the land ceases to be a necessity.” – Per BINTA FATIMA ZUBAIRU, J.C.A

 

---

DIFFERENT NAMES FOR SAME LAND – EFFECT ON LAND IDENTITY:

---

“The law is trite that ascribing different names to land by parties is immaterial for purpose of proving identity to land. See the case of J.A. MAKANJUOLA VS CHIEF OYELAKIN BALAOGUN (1989) 5 SCNJ 42 and ONWUKA VS MICHAEL EDIALA & ANOR (1989) 1 SCNJ 102.” – Per BINTA FATIMA ZUBAIRU, J.C.A.

 

---

LAND IN DISPUTE – DEFINING THE LAND IN DISPUTE:

---

“The land in dispute in any claim for declaration of title of land or entitlement to a grant of Statutory Right of Occupancy in respect of land is none other than the land put in issue and claimed by the plaintiff. It is usually more particularly delineated in his survey plan and in respect of which the parties join issue. It must be clearly stated that the land in dispute in any suit is not that shown or claimed by the defendant on his statement of Defence and/or in his survey plan unless such a defendant counter-claimed against the plaintiff in respect of such land.” – Per BINTA FATIMA ZUBAIRU, J.C.A.

 

---

COMPETENT GROUNDS OF APPEAL – REQUIREMENTS:

---

“The position of the law is that grounds of appeal are filed against a decision. It must challenge the ratio of the case. Put in another way, it must be connected with the disagreement between the parties.” – Per BINTA FATIMA ZUBAIRU, J.C.A.

 

---

STRIKING OUT INCOMPETENT GROUNDS OF APPEAL:

---

“Having closely examined the three grounds of appeal filed by the Appellant, I am left in no iota of doubt, that all the three grounds of appeal are of mixed law and facts which would only be competent if the Appellant had prior leave of filing them, obtain from the Court below or this Court. Apparently, there is no evidence to show that such leave was sought and obtained by him before filing them. That three grounds of appeal are therefore incompetent and liable to be struck out. I accordingly strike out all the three grounds of appeal for being incompetent.” – Per BINTA FATIMA ZUBAIRU, J.C.A.

 

---

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION – DEPENDENCE ON COMPETENT GROUNDS:

---

“Issues for determination do not stand independently. They must arise or be formulated from competent grounds of appeal. In this instant appeal, the two issues raised failed short of that, as the grounds of appeal they were predicated on have been adjudged incompetent. As a corollary, both issues for determination raised in this appeal are also incompetent and deserve to be and are hereby struck out.” – Per BINTA FATIMA ZUBAIRU, J.C.A.

 

---

DOCTRINE OF PRIORITY OF TITLE – COMPETING TITLES FROM SAME SOURCE:

---

“…at law, as in equity, the basic rule is that estates and interest rank in order of creation. Qui prior est tempore potior est jure; he who is earlier in time is stronger in law. Again, where there are two competing equitable interests, the general rule of equity is that the person whose equity attached to the property first will be entitled to priority over the other. Where the equities are equal and neither Claimant has legal estate, the first in time prevails.” – Per BINTA FATIMA ZUBAIRU, J.C.A.

 

---

COMPETING TITLES – DETERMINING BETTER TITLE:

---

“Where there are competing titles, which trace their root to the same source, the one who can show a better title prevails. See OMIYALE VS MACAULAY (2009) FWLR (PT. 479) 399; OTUKPO VS JOHN (2013) ALL FWLR (PT. 661) 1509; (2012) LPELR-25053 (SC).” – Per BINTA FATIMA ZUBAIRU, J.C.A.

 

---

TRESPASS – REQUIREMENT OF POSSESSION:

---

“It is a trite principle of law that in a claim for trespass only a person in possession of the land at all times can maintain an action in damages for trespass. The Appellant claimed to have exclusive right of the Ugbusi land, which the lower Court found belonged to the Omovwaire family as gleaned from the suit (Suit No. UHC/41/77) at the lower Court but failed to prove how he came into exclusive ownership of the family land. It behooved on the Appellant to prove a better title to the disputed land.” – Per BINTA FATIMA ZUBAIRU, J.C.A.

 

---

POSSESSION – DETERMINING LAWFUL POSSESSION:

---

“Both parties cannot be in possession of the same land. Surely, one of them must be in lawful possession while the other is the trespasser. Where, as in this case both parties claim to be in possession of the same land, the law ascribes possession to the party with better title.” – Per UWABUNKEONYE ONWOSI, J.C.A.

 

---

FORMULATION OF ISSUES BY APPELLATE COURT:

---

“It is also well established that although the appeal Court has the discretionary power to reframe or formulate issues for determination in an appeal different from those raised by parties in their briefs, the reframed or formulated issues must be derived from or culled from the ground of appeal filed by the parties.” – Per BINTA FATIMA ZUBAIRU, J.C.A.

 

---

ADMITTED FACTS – NO NEED FOR FURTHER PROOF:

---

“It is good law and well settled that where facts are admitted by parties in their pleadings and oral evidence, they require no further proof.” – Per BINTA FATIMA ZUBAIRU, J.C.A.

 

---

CASES CITED

---

---

STATUTES REFERRED TO

---

•Land Use Act, 1978

•Evidence Act, 2011 (Particularly Sections 123, 131(1), 131(2), and 132)

•Court of Appeal Rules, 2021 (Particularly Order 10 Rule 1, Order 10 Rule 3, and Order 17 Rule 4)

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

 

---

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT