CORAM

---

OYEBISI FOLAYEMI OMOLEYE (PJ), JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL

JAMES SHEHU ABIRIYI, JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL

SAIDU TANKO HUSAINI, JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL

---

PARTIES

---

1. SULEIMAN YERIMA MUHAMMADU

 

---

1. MURTALA ABDULKADIR BABA2. UMAR ABDULKADIR BABA3. HADIYATU TUKUR BABA

 

---

AREA(S) OF LAW

---

---

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Respondents before the High Court of Taraba State holden at Jalingo claimed against the Appellant for a declaration of title to the vast parcel of land in dispute and other reliefs; while the Appellant (who was substituted for his father who was the original Defendant) counterclaimed for a declaration that he is the person entitled to the land and general damages for undue interference. The case of the Respondents at the Court below was that Adamu Barde and his younger brother migrated from Katsina and were given the land by the then Chief of Gassol and they deforested and settled thereon. Maude Adamu inherited the land from his father Adamu Barde. Alhaji Tukur Baba Maude and Abdulkadir Baba Maude inherited the land from Maude Adamu. The Respondents inherited from their parents Alhaji Tukur Baba Maude and Abdulkadir Baba Maude. The Respondents ancestors had been farming on the land and was their family old settlement. After the death of their parents the title documents in respect of the land were handed over to the 1st Respondent for safe keeping; they could not go back to farm on the land, hence the Appellant entered the land, started farming on it and gave out parts of it to some farmers who paid him every year. When they tried reclaiming their land back, the Appellant refused to allow them take possession and denied that Respondents ancestors ever settled on the disputed land. In his defence, the Appellant stated that his brothers and himself inherited the disputed land from their late father Muhammadu Labbo who also inherited it from his father Yerima Muhammadu Maude, who also inherited it from his father Sule Tonga. Sule Tonga inherited the large parcel of land from his father Abubakar Kawu Barde and his brother Sheyido who were the first settlers and deforested the land. That the Respondents have lived all their life in Jalingo and Adamu Barde and his brother did not farm and die on the land in dispute. And that he was not aware of the customary certificate of occupancy granted to the Respondents by the Bali Local Government covering three hundred hectares of Land in Yola Bodawa in his position as the Ward Head of Yerima. At the end of the trial, the lower Court entered judgment in favour of the Respondents and dismissed the counterclaim of the Appellant. Aggrieved, the Appellant had appealed against the decision by his Notice of Appeal containing seven Grounds of Appeal.

 

---

HELD

---

Appeal Allowed

 

---

ISSUES

---

Whether it was not a misdirection or error on the part of the trial judge when he held that the Appellant did not file any reply to the averments of the Respondents in their Statement of Claim to the effect that the Appellant ancestor came into possession of the land in dispute by the same being entrusted to them thus leaving the said averments unchallenged and uncontroverted and whether such misdirection and the conclusion resulting from the misdirection has not occasioned a miscarriage of justice to the Appellant. Whether the learned trial judge was right in relying on Amended Written Statements on Oath of Respondents’ witnesses which they never adopted as their evidence before the court and whether he was right when he neglected the various and recent acts of possession and ownership on the part of the Appellant in resolving the conflicting evidence of traditional history from the Appellant on one hand and the Respondents on the other. Whether the trial judge was right in granting title to the Respondents in respect of the land in dispute by virtue of the evidence of traditional history given by them when they neither pleaded nor proved the root of title of an unnamed Chief of Gassol who allegedly granted them the land and whether he was right in attaching weight to Exhibits D and D1 as title documents of the Respondents in respect of the land in dispute in the circumstances. Whether the trial judge rightly evaluated the evidence led before him and whether the judgment of the Lower Court was not against the weight of evidence.

 

---

RATIONES DECIDENDI

---

PROOF OF TITLE TO LAND – WAYS BY WHICH OWNERSHIP OR TITLE TO LAND MAY BE PROVED

---

“Since 1976 when Idundun vs. Okumagba was decided by the Supreme Court the Courts in this country have listed the following five ways in which ownership or title to land may be proved. These are: 1.By traditional evidence 2.By production of documents of title 3.By providing acts of ownership such as selling, leasing, renting out or farming on all or part of the land extending over a sufficient length of time or acts which are numerous and positive enough as to warrant the inference that the person is the true owner 4.By proving acts of long possession and enjoyment of the land. These are really more of a weapon of defence rather than offence (by Section 145 Evidence Act possession raises a presumption of ownership although this presumption can be defeated) 5.By proof of possession of connected or adjacent land in circumstances rendering it probable that the claimant is also owner of such adjacent land (Section 35 Evidence Act). See Idundun vs. Okumagba (1976) 9 & 10 SC at page 246 – 250, Magaji & Ors vs. Cadbury Nigeria Limited & Ors (1985) 7 SC (Pt. 1) 59 at 153, Nkwo vs. Iboe (1998) 7 NWLR (Pt. 558) 354 SC and Adesanya vs. Aderounmu (2000) 6 SC (Pt. 11) 18. –

 

---

DECLARATORY RELIEFS – CONDITIONS FOR THE GRANT OF DECLARATORY RELIEFS

---

“Declaratory reliefs are not granted as a matter of course and on a platter of gold. They are only granted when credible evidence has been led by the plaintiff or person seeking the declaratory relief. A declaratory relief will be granted where the plaintiff is entitled to the relief in the fullest meaning of the word. It is the law that the plaintiff must plead and prove his claim for declaratory relief without relying on the evidence called by the defendant. Declaratory reliefs are 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 plaintiffs title. See Anyaru vs. Mandilas Limited (2007) 4 SCNJ 288, Chukwumah vs. S.P.D.C. (Nig) Limited (1993) LPELR-864 SC page 64 – 65, Matanmi & Ors vs. Dada & Anor (2013) LPELR-19929 SC, Oguanuhu vs. Chiegboka (2013) 2 SCNJ 693 at 707 and Akinboni & Ors vs. Akintope & Ors (2016) LPELR-40184 CA page 25 – 26. In the instant case the Respondents claimed that the land was granted to their ancestors by the Chief of Gassol without showing the root of title of the Chief of Gassol. It is the law that where a person traces the root of his title to a person or family, he must establish how that person or family also came to have title vested in him or it. See Okoko vs. Dakolo (2006) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1000) 401.-

 

---

TECHNICALITIES – ATTITUDE OF COURTS TO TECHNICALITIES

---

“Courts have for long now shifted away from the narrow technical approach to justice and now pursue substantial justice. Courts of law should not be unduly tied down by technicalities particularly where no miscarriage of justice would be occasioned. See Kakih vs. PDP (2014) 7 SCNJ 65 at 92. The reference to amended statements on oath by the Court below was a mere irregularity and did not occasion a miscarriage of justice to the Appellant.- –

 

---

DECLARATION OF TITLE TO LAND – WHETHER THE MERE PRODUCTION OF A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY BY A PARTY IN A SUIT ENTITLES THE PARTY TO A DECLARATION OF TITLE TO THE LAND

---

“From what I have stated elsewhere in this judgment the Respondents as rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the Appellant failed to establish how the Chief of Gassol came to have title vested in him to enable him grant same to the Respondents. See Okoko vs. Dakolo (supra). To succeed in a claim to title, a party who holds a certificate of occupancy will need to show his root of title. The certificate of occupancy can only be valid if the root of title originates from the customary owners of the property. The mere production of a certificate of occupancy by a party in a suit does not by itself entitle the party to a declaration of title to the land. See Auta vs. Ibe (2003) 13 NWLR (Pt. 837) 247 and Njoku vs. Registered trustees, C.H.G.F (2006) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1011) 239. –

 

---

CASES CITED

---

Not Available

 

---

STATUTES REFERRED TO

---

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

Evidence Act 2011

 

---

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT