DUDU ADDAH & ORS V. HASSAN SAHI UBANDAWAKI

CORAM

KUMAIBAYANG AKA’AHS    JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

PARTIES

1.    DUDU ADDAH

2.    KAMBA ADDAH

3.    GERMANE ADDAH

4.    MANI ADDAH

5.    DANGA ADDAH

6.    CHIKE ADDAH

7.    TANKO YAGE8.    ROD A YAGE

APPELLANTS 

HASSAN SAHI UBANDAWAKI

RESPONDENTS 

AREA(S) OF LAW

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Plaintiffs/Appellants instituted an action against the Defendant/Respondent at the High Court of Kebbi State seeking a declaration that they were entitled to the land in dispute. The trial Court gave judgment in favour of the Plaintiffs/Appellants. Dissatisfied with the judgment of the trial Court, the Defendant/Respondent appealed to the Court of Appeal where the judgment of the trial Court was set aside.  The Plaintiffs/Appellants has further appealed to the apex court.

HELD

Appeal Dismissed

ISSUES

1. Whether in consideration of the pleadings vis-à-vis the evidence led, the lower court was not in error when itheld that the land in dispute was not identified by the appellants?

RATIONES DECIDENDI

COURT- A COURT HAS NO JURISDICTION TO SUPPLY ANY MISSING LINK IN A PARTY’S SUIT

“A court has no jurisdiction to supply any missing link in a genealogical tree from progenitor to a claimant.”PER J. A. FABIYI, J.S.C

COURT -A COURT CANNOT BE A WITNESS AS WELL AS AN ADJUDICATOR IN A CASE

“It is a witness or witnesses that have the duty to give evidence and it does not lie within the competence of a court to assume the role of a witness. In otherwords, in a situation where a court proceeds to ascribe that role to itself, it will be tantamount to exceeding its constitutional duty of adjudication. Such role is not recognized in our judicial procedure. Put differently, a court cannot both be a witness as well as an adjudicator.” PER C. BATA-OGUNBIYI, JSC

OWNERSHIP OF LAND – WAYS OF PROVING OWNERSHIP OF LAND

“It is now settled that there are five ways to which ownership of land may be proved —
FIRSTLY ownership of land may be proved by traditional evidence.
SECONDLY ownership of land may be proved by production of documents of title which must of course be duly authenticated in the sense that their due execution must be proved.
THIRDLY acts of ownership extending over a sufficient length of time and are numerous and positive enough to warrant the inference that the person is the true owner (See: Ekpo v. Ita 11 NLR 680)
FOURTHLY acts of long possession and enjoyment of land which may be prima facie evidence of ownership of the particular piece or parcel of land or quantity of land (See: section 45 of the Evidence Act.)
FINALLY 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.”PER J. A. FABIYI, J.S.C.

PROOF OF ROOT OF TITLE – A PERSON WHO RELIES ON TRADITIONAL HISTORY AS ROOT OF TITLE, HE MUST PLEAD THE NAMES AND HISTORY OF HIS ANCESTORS AND LEAD EVIDENCE ON SAME

“The law is now well established and settled that where a person relies on traditional history as his root of title, the onus is on him to plead the root of title and names and history of his ancestors. He should lead evidence to establish same without any missing link. See: Anyanwu v.Mbera (1992) 5 NWLR (Pt. 242) 386; Akinloye v. Eyiola (1968) 2 NMLR 92; Owoade v. Omitola (1988) 2 NWLR (Pt. 77) 413.”PER J. A. FABIYI, J.S.C.

COURT- DUTY OF COURT NOT TO SET UP A DIFFERENT CASE FOR PARTIES

“No judge should embark upon deliberate falsehood or go on his own voyage to furnish imaginary evidence on the identity of the land in dispute. After all, a judge should not set up for parties a case different from the one established by cold facts supplied by the parties as well as their pleadings. See: Oniah v. Onyiah (1989) 1 NWLR (Pt. 99) 514 and Ojo-Osagie v. Adonri (1994) 6 NWLR (Pt. 349) 131.” PER J. A. FABIYI,J.S.C.

CASES CITED

STATUTES REFERRED TO

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT