IKKO KASHADADI v. INGILLAS ARKIN NOMA
June 25, 2025JOSIAH OWODUNNI VS REGISTERED TRUSTEES OF CELESTIAL CHURCH OF CHRIST & ORS
June 25, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (2000) Legalpedia (SC) 83364
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Fri Jun 30, 2000
Suit Number: SC. 15/1995
CORAM
M.E. OGUNDARE JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
Amina Adamu Augie
S.O. UWAIFO JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
PARTIES
SUNMONU OLOHUNDEALIMI ODUOLA APPELLANTS
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The plaintiff sued the defendants for ownership over a parcel of land. He traced the origin of his title to one Efun and failed to prove how the said Efun came to acquire the ownership of the said land.
HELD
The court held that his claims ought to have been dismissed by the lower courts as he has failed to establish how his predecessor in title acquired the land
ISSUES
1. Has the court below not misinterpreted and misapplied the provisions of Section 34 of the Land Use Act 1978 when it relied on mere possession without title to hold that the Respondent was entitled to a Certificate of Statutory Right of Occupancy.
2. Whether, with pleading and evidence at variance, the Respondent had established his case and whether the Court below was right in law to have held that the Respondent who pleaded the original settlement of EFUN as his root of title needed not to have proved the same.
RATIONES DECIDENDI
ONUS ON PLAINTIFF TO PROVE THE VALIDITY OF HIS TITLE
“It is well settled that once a party pleads and traces his root title in an action involving title to land to a particular person or source, and this averment, as in the present case, is disputed or challenged, that party, to succeed, as a plaintiff in the suit must not only establish his own title to such land, he must also satisfy the court on the validity of the title of the particular person or source from whom he claims to have derived his title….”…IGUH JSC
CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY IS NOT A CONCLUSIVE PROOF OF TITLE
“a certificate of statutory or customary right of occupancy issued under the Land Use Act, 1978 cannot be said to be conclusive evidence of any right, interest or valid title to land in favour of the grantee. It is, at best, only a prima facie evidence of such right, interest or title without more and may in appropriate cases be effectively challenged and rendered invalid and null and void.”…IGUH JSC
CASES CITED
1. Mogaji v. Cadbury Nigeria Ltd. (1985) 7 SC 59, (1985) 2 NWLR (Part 7) 393 at 431,
2. Elias v. Omo Bare (1982) 5 SC 25 at 37-58,
3. Akintola v. Lasupo (1991) 3 NWLR (Part 180) 508 at 515,
STATUTES REFERRED TO
Land Use Act, 1978
