ALHAJI FATAI A. MATANMI VS VICTORIA DADA

CORAM

FRANCIS FEDODE TABAI , JUSTICE SUPREME COURT

FRANCIS FEDODE TABAI , JUSTICE SUPREME COURT

FRANCIS FEDODE TABAI , JUSTICE SUPREME COURT

FRANCIS FEDODE TABAI , JUSTICE SUPREME COURT

PARTIES

1. ALHAJI FATAI ALANI MATANMI2. ALHAJI ABUDU MATANMI3.SUNDAY MATANMI APPELLANTS

THE STATE

RESPONDENTS 

AREA(S) OF LAW

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The plaintiffs sought a declaration to the effect that they were entitled to the certificate of occupancy to the parcel of land situate and known as Ijari land in Ijoko Otta Railway SAtation, via Otta, Ifo/Ota Local Government Area Ogun State.

HELD

Appeal Allowed

ISSUES

1. Whether on the totality of the evidence adduced before the trial court as affirmed by the justices of the Court of Appeal, the plaintiffs/respondents have proved their title to the land in dispute?

RATIONES DECIDENDI

DECLARATION OF TITLE TO LAND – TRADITIONAL EVIDENCE – RULE IN KOJO 11 V. BONSIE

“What then is the rule in Kojo 11 v. Bonsie ? The rule which has stood the test of time for quite some time now is that where traditional evidence proffered by the parties are inconclusive, the court is enjoined to take into consideration facts in recent times given by the parties in order to determine which of the traditional is more probable. To resort to this rule, the traditional evidence of the parties must be capable of being believed but that since the two are competing, a court cannot prefer one to the other. Rather, it is enjoined to look out for further facts in recent times to see which of the traditional history is more probable.” – Per J. A Fabiyi JSC

FINDINGS OF FACT BY TRIAL COURT -ATTITUDES OF APPELLATE COURTS TO FACTS AS FOUND BY THE TRIAL COURT

“It is basic that an appellate court will not interfere with findings of facts except where wrongly applied to the circumstance of the case or conclusion arrived at was patently perverse or wrong” – Per J. A Fabiyi JSC

CONCURRENT FINDINGS BY LOWER COURTS – ATTITUDE OF SUPREME COURT TOWARD CONCURRENT FINDINGS BY LOWER COURTS

“An invitation to this court to upset concurrent findings can only be justified when such findings do not relate to any evidence on record or substantial error is manifest in the proceedings/decision or the findings cannot be supported having regard to evidence before the court” – Per J. A Fabiyi JSC

DECLARATION OF TITLE TO LAND – PROVING TITLE TO LAND

“It is now beyond argument, as it has been consistently held by this court without any equivocation that there are five ways of proving title to land. A claimant may rely on more than one mode of proving title; if so desired. However, one mode of proving title will suffice, if properly established to the satisfaction of the court. The five ways of proving title to land are:
Traditional evidence.

Production of document of title
Proof of acts of ownership extending over a sufficient length of time, numerous and positive enough as to warrant the inference that the persons exercising such acts are the true owners of the land.
Acts of long possession and enjoyment of the land.
By proof of possession of adjacent land in dispute in such circumstances which render it probable that the owner of the adjacent land is the owner of the land in dispute.” – Per J. A Fabiyi JSC

CASES CITED

Ogunnaike v. Oluyemi (1987) 3 SC 215Atanda v. Ajani (1989) 2 NWLR (pt. 111) 511Kojo 11 v. Bonsie (1957) 1 WLR 1223Nwosu v. Board of Customs and Excise (1988) 5 NWLR (pt. 93) 225Nneji v. Chukwu (1996) 10 NWLR (pt. 378) 265Alakija v. Abdulai (1988) 6 NWLR (pt. 552) 1Ogbu v. Wokoma (2005) 14 NWLR (pt. 944) 118 at 140

STATUTES REFERRED TO

None

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT