May 18, 2025
Legalpedia Citation: (2012) Legalpedia (SC) 82138 In the Supreme Court of Nigeria Fri Apr 13, 2012 Suit Number: SC. 93/2003 CORAM MAMMAN NASIR, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT FRANCIS […]
CORAM
MAMMAN NASIR, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
FRANCIS FEDODE TABAI JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
PARTIES
ALHAJI GANIYU M. B. ISEOGBFKEN & ANOR. APPELLANTS
ALHAJI. SIKIRU GBERIGI ADELAKUN & ORS.
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
This is a case for declaration of title, possession and account of rents and profit. The Plaintiff/Respondent claim that they are descendants of the original owner of the property in dispute, and have been in possession till 1981 upon the death of their mother. And have also been collecting rent from other buildings on the said property, till the 1st – 3rd defendants claimed that the property was theirs and directed that all rents and profits be paid to them. The 4th to 6th defendant claimed that the property belongs to the Bashua Chieftancy family, and the paintiff, 1st – 3rd defendants were slaves of the family. The lower court stated that none of the parties could prove title, but gave possession to the plaintiff, and ordered that arrears of rent and profit be paid to the plaintiff. The defendants dissatisfied appealed to the Supreme Court.?
HELD
The court held that all parties were unable to prove their title by traditional evidence, the judgement of the lower court was affirmed to the extent of the change of year to read 1981
ISSUES
1.The lateness of the plaintiffs/appellants/respondents brief of argument in the Court of Appeal?
RATIONES DECIDENDI
REASON FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF THE IDENTITY OF A LAND
“The reason for the desirability of the establishment of the identity of a land in dispute is to ascertain the property involved in a litigation, so as to avoid the granting of a piece of land or a part thereon to a party who is not entitled to it.” PER A.M MUKHTAR, J.S.C
WHEN PROOF OF THE IDENTITY OF A LAND IS NOT NECESSARY
“The law is settled on the principle of law that a party who seeks title to land vide any of the five ways of seeking such, must prove identity of the land in respect of which he seeks remedy. Once the opponent parties, (as in this case) have admitted the identity of the land in dispute as pleaded in the pleadings either through pleadings or oral evidence then identity has been established.” PER A.M MUKHTAR, J.S.C
DECLARATION OF TITLE TO LAND BY TRADITIONAL HISTORY
“The position of the law is that a party who hinges his claim on declaration of title to land vide traditional history he must establish how his ancestor, the original owner acquired the land i.e whether by settlement, conquest or grant. Authorities abound that a claim predicated on traditional history or evidence must be proved by any of these methods, and traditional evidence adduced must be cogent, uncontradicted evidence that must also be conclusive, if the party is to succeed” PER A.M MUKHTAR, J.S.C
PRINCIPLE OF LAW GOVERNING THE PROOF OF CIVIL SUITS
“It is settled law that civil suits are determined on preponderance of evidence and balanced of probability, and also it is well settled that he who asserts must prove in order to succeed in his claim.” PER A.M MUKHTAR, J.S.C
PROOF IN DECLARATION OF TITLE TO LAND
“In a claim for declaration of title to land the law is trite (that a part) who claims such remedy in court must prove its case with cogent uncontradicted evidence that remains credible and reliable” PER A.M MUKHTAR, J.S.C
GROUNDS OF PROOVING TITLE TO LAND
“By virtue of the authority of Idundun & Ors v. Okuma&ba 1976 10 S.C. 277 title to land can be proved by the following five grounds:-
1. Proof by traditional history or traditional evidence
2. Proof by grant or the production of document of title
3. Proof by acts of ownership extending over a sufficient length of time numerous and positive enough to warrant the inference that the persons exercising such acts are true owners of the land
4. Proof by acts of long possession
5. Proof by possession of connected or adjacent land in circumstances rendering it probable that the owner of such land would in addition be the owner of the land in dispute” PER A.M MUKHTAR, J.S.C
CASES CITED
Aikhioubare v. Omoregie 1976 12 SC. 16 Kodilinve v. Mbancfo Odu 2 W.A.C.A. 336Eboha v. Anakwenza 1967 FNLR 279 Imana v. Robinson 1979 3 – 4 SC. L Hlias v. Qmo-Bare 1982 5 SC. 25Woluchem v. Gudi 1981 5 SC. 291Idundun & Ors v. Okuma&ba 1976 10 S.C. 277
STATUTES REFERRED TO
Section 22 Supreme Court Act