Legalpedia Citation: (2023-08) Legalpedia 77904 (CA)

In the Court of Appeal

Holden at Lagos

Wed Aug 2, 2023

Suit Number: CA/L/64/2013

CORAM

ONYEKACHI AJA OTISI JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL

ABUBAKAR SADIQ UMAR JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL

ABDULLAHI MAHMUD BAYERO JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL

PARTIES

SYDNEY DUNU

 

APPELLANTS

CHIEF RASHEED KIKELOMO GBADAMOSI

 

RESPONDENTS

AREA(S) OF LAW

APPEAL, EVIDENCE, LAND LAW, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The parties disputed over a piece of land situate at No 5, John Christ Street, Tedi Village in Ojo Local Government Area of Lagos State.

The Respondent as Claimant at the lower Court claimed that the Appellant (defendant at the trial court) entered upon the land in dispute in 2002, carted away with leftover of materials used for construction, and damaged the existing structure on the land. The Respondent claimed that the said land, the materials and the structure referred to belonged to him. He prayed the court to grant an order restraining the Appellant from further trespass and for damages. The Appellant counter-claimed laying claims to the land and praying the court for damages for trespass.

The lower Court thereafter delivered its Judgment wherein it granted the Respondent’s claims, awarded damages, and dismissed the entire claims of the Appellant. Aggrieved by the decision, the Appellant filed the instant appeal.

HELD

Appeal dismissed

ISSUES

Ø Whether the Lower Court properly evaluated the facts and evidence placed before it by the parties before granting the Reliefs in this matter as constituted?

Ø Whether in the circumstance, the trial Judge was right when he held that the Respondent is entitled to general and special damages?

 

RATIONES DECIDENDI

EVIDENCE – FORMS OF EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE AND CONDUCT OF APPELLATE COURTS

It is trite that evaluation of evidence comes in two forms; findings of fact based on the credibility of witnesses and findings based on the evaluation of evidence. See Ayorinde & Ors vs. Sogunro & Ors (2012) LPELR-7808(SC). This Court has been enjoined to be slow to differ from the findings of a lower Court on the credibility of witnesses, as it was the lower Court who watched their demeanour and so its conclusions must be accorded some respect. However, this Court is in a good position as the lower Court to evaluate evidence tendered by parties. – Per A. S. Umar, JCA

BURDEN OF PROOF – BURDEN OF PROOF WHEN BOTH PARTIES FILE STATEMENTS OF CLAIM AND COUNTER CLAIM

The Respondent and the Appellant at the lower Court, filed Statement of Claim and Counter claim respectively. In view of these competing claims filed by both parties, the burden of proof should be ascribed to each party on the preponderance of evidence to show entitlement to the land in dispute and that burden will be discharged on the balance of probabilities as required by Section 131 -134 of the Evidence Act, 2011. – Per A. S. Umar, JCA

TITLE TO LAND – WAYS OF PROVING TITLE TO LAND

The Supreme Court has held in a plethora of cases that there are five ways to prove title to land, which are: by traditional evidence; by production of documents of title; acts of ownership extending over a sufficient length of time, numerous and positive enough to warrant the inference that the person is the true owner; acts of long possession and enjoyment of the land; and by proof of possession of connected or adjacent land in circumstances rendering it probable that the owner of such connected or adjacent land would in addition be the owner of the land in dispute. See Idundun vs. Okumagba (1976) 9-10 SC, 227; Orlu v Gogo Abite (2010) 1 SC (Part 2) 1. – Per A. S. Umar, JCA

LAND – WHERE THERE IS A COMPULSORY ACQUISITION OF LAND

The Supreme Court in the case of Yusuf vs. Oyetunde & Ors (1998) 12 NWLR (Pt. 579) 483 at 493 held that once there is a compulsory acquisition of land, the title of the former owner becomes extinguished by reason of the acquisition and when the acquired land or part of it is returned, a new title by grant will be created. – Per A. S. Umar, JCA

DOCUMENTS – BEST EVIDENCE OF CONTENTS OF DOCUMENTS

It is trite law that the best evidence of the contents of a document is the production of that document. See Fagbenro vs. Arobadi & Ors (2006) LPELR -1227 (SC). See also Jiaza vs. Bamgbose (1999) 7 NWLR (Pt. 610) 182 where the Supreme Court held that a party who relies on a document in proof of his title to land must tender the documents in evidence as extrinsic evidence of its content is not admissible in evidence. – Per A. S. Umar, JCA

 

COURTS – DUTY OF COURTS TO ACT ON CREDIBLE EVIDENCE

It is the duty of the Court to act on credible evidence before it. Where evidence is weightless in establishing fact, the court must attach no value to it. See Asaa vs. Ojah (2015) LPELR-24278(CA); State vs. Collins Ojo Aibangbee (2008) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1037) 517. – Per A. S. Umar, JCA

LAND – TITLE TO LAND WHERE THERE IS A GRANT OF STATUTORY RIGHT OF OCCUPANCY

It is the law that a grant of statutory right of occupancy extinguishes all other existing rights to land. This is clear from the provision of the Land Use Act as contained in Section 5(2) which provides that:

“Upon the grant of a statutory right of occupancy under the provisions of subsection (1) of this section all existing rights to the use and occupation of the land which is the subject of the statutory right of occupancy shall be extinguished”. – Per A. S. Umar, JCA

 

DOCUMENTS – DEFECTIVE DOCUMENTS vs. VALID DOCUMENTS OF TITLE TO LAND

It is trite that no defective document of title to land can displace a valid one. Where a party has satisfied the Court that the documents of title to land he holds are valid and effectual as against the defective documents in the hands of the other party, the party with valid documents is entitled to be declared the owner of the land in dispute. See Agbonifo vs. Aiwereoba & Anor (1988) 1 NWLR (Pt.70) p. 325; Ekpemupolo & Ors vs. Edremoda & Ors (2009) LPELR-1089(SC).

In Madaki & Ors vs. Kingham (2015) LPELR-25696 (CA), this Court, per Georgewill, JCA, held that:

“Where a Plaintiff has been able to satisfy the Court that the documents of title he holds are genuine, valid and effectual and the identity of land covered by it is established or not in dispute, he is entitled to be declared the owner.” – Per A. S. Umar, JCA

EVIDENCE – WHEN EVIDENCE HAS NOT BEEN PLACED BEFORE THE COURT

The law is clear that no Court is empowered to make reference to any piece of evidence or document which has not been properly and formally placed before it in the course of reaching its decision in a case. See Wassah & Ors vs. Kara & Ors (2014) LPELR-24212(SC); Oranika vs. State (2018) LPELR- 45481 (CA). – Per A. S. Umar, JCA

DAMAGES – HOW DAMAGES ARE PROVED IN COURT

The law is well defined with respect to how damages are proved in Court. General damages can be inferred as they flow from the wrong committed by the defendant and thus need not be pleaded or proved. However, Special damages must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved in evidence. See Iwuagwu & Ors vs. Uzoma (2014) LPELR-23781(CA).

In Onyiorah vs. Onyiorah & Anor (2019) LPELR- 49096 (SC), the Supreme Court, per Rhodes-Vivours, JSC, held thus:

“Special Damages must be specially pleaded and strictly proved by the Claimant. To succeed in a claim for special damages, the Claimant must plead the special damages and give necessary particulars and adduce credible evidence in support. The Claimant must satisfy the Court as to how the sum claimed as special damages was quantified.” – Per A. S. Umar, JCA

CASES CITED

STATUTES REFERRED TO

1. Evidence Act, 2011
2. Land Instrument Registration Law of Lagos State
3.  Land Use Act

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT