ANTHONY ITU V THE STATE
April 26, 2025DAVID MUSA MSHELIA V BANK OF AGRICULTURE LIMITED
April 26, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (2022-04) Legalpedia 37013 (CA)
In the Court of Appeal
HOLDEN AT YOLA
Tue Jan 26, 2016
Suit Number: CA/J/99/2014
CORAM
TIJJANI ABDULLAHI,JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL
JUMMAI HANNATU SANKEY, JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL
SAIDU TANKO HUSAINI, JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL
PARTIES
SANI MUSTAPHA BABURA
APPELLANTS
SAIDU MOHAMMED
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
APPEAL, COURT, LAND LAW, LAW OF EVIDENCE, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The Appellant herein instituted an action against the Respondent at the Gombe High Court claiming for declarative reliefs to the ownership of a piece of land situate in Gombe covered by a certificate of occupancy No. BA/52-25, which he claimed is not the same as the piece of land covered by a certificate of occupancy No. BA/5225 as reflected on the letter of grant No. BA/780 issued to the Respondent. The Appellant also requested for an Order of the Court directing the Respondent to demolish the structure wrongfully erected on the land. The Respondent on the other hand counter-claimed and sought for declarative reliefs claiming ownership of land measuring 450sq meters known as plot B.542 and covered by state grant no. CRR/2706/3 dated 20/11/1984, upon which he built his residence. The trial court after hearing from both sides granted the reliefs sought by the Respondent. Dissatisfied, the Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal for recompence.
HELD
Appeal Dismissed
ISSUES
Whether from the evidence before the Court the Appellant proved the identity of the land granted to him by certificate of occupancy No. BA/5225 particularly measured as 720 square meters on the survey plan. This issue is distilled from ground 2.
Whether the trial Court properly evaluated the evidence before the Court in confirming title of the disputed land to the Respondent. This issue is distilled from grounds 1, 3 and 5.
Whether the Respondent has proved long possession of the disputed land to have warranted the trial Court to confirm the land to the Respondent. This issue is distilled from ground 4”.
RATIONES DECIDENDI
ON WHO LIES THE BURDEN OF PROOF IN A CLAIM OF OWNERSHIP OF LAND
“The law is settled that in land matters, the burden of proof is on the party who claims title to or ownership of land which in most cases is the Plaintiff. See Olodo v. Josiah (2010) 18 NWLR (pt. 1225) 653 S.C., Adenle v. Oyegbade (1967) NWLR 136, Oyeyiola V. Adeoti (1975) NWLR PG. 10. In the case of Cyprain IONWUAMA V. Loius Ezeokoli (2002) 5 NWLR (pt. 760) 353, the Supreme Court per Uwaifo JSC held, thus:
“The general principle governing civil matters, proof is upon the balance of probabilities or preponderance of evidence. This does not mean that the onus to prove title shifts from the plaintiff, it does not. What has been firmly established as the law is that the plaintiff, in order to succeed in his claim for a declaration of title must bring forward cogent evidence which must till the imaginary scale in his favour. He is not expected to prove his case beyond reasonable doubt as in criminal case, nor is there a midway in the standard of proof between criminal and civil in such a claim. All that is required is that the evidence produced by the Plaintiff to support title must be such that can support a declaratory relief and which, in the end, when placed on the scale of justice, will tilt in his favour”.
PER T. ABDULLAHI, J.C.A
DUTY OF THE PLAINTIFF TO ESTABLISH THE BOUNDARIES OF THE LAND IN DISPUTE
“The law is trite that where there is dispute as to the area and boundaries of the land, the Plaintiff who relies on plan must show that his plan corresponds with the area claimed or in dispute. He may do this by showing that the description of the land in his pleading and as given in evidence in support is in complete accord with the plan filed along with the statement of claim and relied on by him. This is to ensure that the land is certain both in size or boundary and location. See Adenle v. Olude (2002) 9-10 S.C. 124, Aro v. Obaloro (1968) NMLR 238; Okosun Epi v. Aigbedion (1973) NNLR 31. In the case of Archibong v. Ita (2004) 2 NWLR (Pt. 858) 590 the Supreme Court per Pat Acholonu JSC. Held.
“For it has long been settled that where both parties in civil did not agree as to the identity of the land in dispute it becomes the bounden duty of the initiator of the action to produce a survey plant”. PER T. ABDULLAHI, J.C.A
DUTY OF THE PLAINTIFF TO ESTABLISH THE IDENTITY OF THE LAND IN DISPUTE TO SUCCEED IN HIS CLAIM FOR DECLARATION TO TITLE TO LAND
“The law is settled that a Plaintiff desirous to succeed in his claim for declaration to title to land in dispute must regard establishing the identity of the land in dispute as a sin qua non. See Odofin v. Oni (2001) 3 NWLR (Pt. 701) 488. In Ukogu v. Mbanugo & Ors. (supra) This Court per Abdulkadir, JCA held; thus:
“This law is clear that where there is a dispute as to the identity of the land in dispute, then it is for the Plaintiff claiming declaration of entitlement of right of occupancy to the land, to establish the identity of the land with certainty”.
Also In Musa Iyaji v. Sule Eyigege (1987) NWLR (Pt. 61) 623, the Supreme Court held:
“…the first duty of any claimant to title to land is to show exactly and precisely a defined and identifiable area to which his claim relates, if the claimant fails on this first hurdle no further questions need arise. His case will stand dismissed”. PER T. ABDULLAHI, J.C.A
INSTANCE WHEN AN APPELLATE COURT WILL INTERFERE WITH THE FINDINGS OF A TRIAL COURT
“The duty of evaluation of evidence is primarily within the realm of the trial Court. An appellate Court will not ordinarily disturb the findings of fact of a trial Court unless such findings are perverse and not supported by evidence. It is only trial Court that has the singular advantage of seeing and listening to a witness, thereby witnessing his demeanor as he gives evidence and assessing him. See Amadi v. Federal Republic of Nigeria (2008) LPELR – 441 (SC), Ebba v. Ogodo (1984) 1 SCNCR 372 Obodo v. Ogba (1987) 2 NWLR (Pt. 541) and Tapshang v. Lekret (2000) 13 NWLR (Pt. 684) Page 381” Per Mukhtar JSC.” PER T. ABDULLAHI, J.C.A
ISSUES BEFORE THE COURT- DUTY OF AN APPELLATE COURT TO CONSIDER ALL ISSUES PLACED BEFORE IT.
“The law is trite that an appellate Court has a duty to consider all the issues placed before it. However, where it is of the view that a consideration of one is enough to dispose of the appeal, it is not under any obligation to consider all the other issues raised. See Okonji v. Njokanma (1991) NWLR (Pt. 202) 131 at 146.” PER T. ABDULLAHI, J.C.A
CASES CITED
None
STATUTES REFERRED TO
Evidence Act, 2011 (as amended).
