MICHAEL AIYEOLOA VS RAMOTA YEKINI PEDRO Archives - Legalpedia | The Complete Lawyer - Research | Productivity

CORAM

MUHAMMAD SAIFULLAH MUNTAKA-COOMASSIE, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

MARY UKAEGO PETFR-ODILI, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

MUHAMMAD SAIFULLAH MUNTAKA-COOMASSIE, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

MARY UKAEGO PETFR-ODILI, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

PARTIES

MICHAEL AIYEOLOA APPELLANTS

RAMOTA YEKINI PEDRO

RESPONDENTS

AREA(S) OF LAW

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Respondent as Plaintiff at the trial High Court of Lagos commenced an action against the Appellant as Defendant through a writ of summons and statement of claim claiming a declaration as to statutory right of occupancy in respect of the piece of land and building thereon, an Order for possession of the said piece of land and building thereon and Perpetual Injunction restraining the Defendant from interfering with Plaintiff’s right and interest in or over the property. At the conclusion of the trial and the final addresses of counsel to the respective parties, the learned trial judge dismissed the case of the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff failed to prove the claims. The Plaintiff as Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal being dissatisfied with the decision of the trial High Court. The lower Court allowed the appeal and set aside the decision of the trial Court. Dissatisfied, the Defendant filed this appeal.

HELD

Appeal dismissed

ISSUES

1. Whether Respondent clearly ascertained the identity of the land in dispute and if the Court of Appeal was right to use the Survey Plan, Exhibit ‘B’ solely to resolve the issue of the identity of the land?

2. Whether the Respondent proved her case to the standard required by law ?

RATIONES DECIDENDI

PROOF OF TITLE TO LAND – WAYS OF PROVING TITLE TO LAND

“These methods or ways are thus:-
a. By traditional history or evidence; or
b. By documents of title; or
c. By various acts of ownership numerous and positive, and extending over a length of time as to warrant the ownership; or
d. By acts of long enjoyment and possession of the land; and
e. By proof of possession of adjacent land in circumstances which render it probable that the owner of such adjacent land would in addition be the owners of the land in dispute.
The practice in declaration of title or a dispute to such declaration is constant and the law is that a party claiming title to land must show that he acquired his title in any one of the five ways or methods above stated.” PER PETER-ODILI JSC

IDENTITY OF LAND- ON WHO LIES THE BURDEN OF PROOF WHERE DISPUTE IS AS TO THE IDENTITY OF THE LAND

“Where there is a dispute as to the identity of the land in dispute, the burden is on the party claiming title to establish the identity by specific and unequivocal evidence as to its boundaries. SEE: AREMU VS ADETORO (20071 16 NWLR (PT.10601 244: (2007) 7 SC (PT.IIL 1; ODESANYA VS EWEDEMI (19621 1 ALL NLR 320. This may be done in either of two ways. The claimant may give an oral description of the land sufficient to make it ascertainable. SEE: AREMU VS ADETORO (SUPRAL: AWERE VS LASOIU (19751 NMLR 100: IDEHAN VS OSEMWENKHAE (19971 10 NWLR (PT.525) 358; or he may file a survey plan. A survey plan is not required in every case. Where an oral description is relied upon, the test is whether a surveyor can, from the record, produce an accurate plan of such land.” PER KEKERE-EKUN JSC

DECLARATION OF TITLE TO LAND-DUTY OF PARTIES AND THE COURT IN A CLAIM FOR DECLARATION OF TITLE

“A court does not make declarations of title either on mere admission in pleadings or in default of defence without hearing appropriate evidence and being satisfied with such evidence. It is for that reason that the party laying claims satisfy the court by evidence and not by an admission in the pleadings of the defendant supporting this entitlement to the declaration sought. The fact is not lost in mind that the court still has discretion of granting or not granting the declaration, however, the success of such a claimant in action depends entirely on the strength of his own case and not on the chance thing of the weakness of the defence.” PER PETER-ODILI JSC

DECLARATION OF TITLE TO LAND-WHETHER THE NAME GIVEN TO A PIECE OF LAND IS IMPORTANT WHERE THE IDENTITY OF THE LAND IS CERTAIN

“When the identity of the land is certain, the name given to any particular piece of land is of no moment and of little assistance or value in ascertaining the precise boundaries or features of the land”. PER PETER-ODILI JSC

MISTAKES OF THE COURT-WHETHER EVERY MISTAKE OF COURT WILL LEAD TO THE JUDGMENT BEING OVERTURNED ON APPEAL

“It is not every mistake by a court that will lead to its judgment being overturned on appeal.” PER KEKERE-EKUN JSC

TITLE TO LAND- DUTY OF THE COURT WHERE A PARTY HAS SATISFIED THE COURT AS TO HIS TITLE TO THE LAND IN DISPUTE

“Where a party has satisfied the court as to his title to land in dispute, the court need not inquire into the title of his predecessor-in-title. The party does not need to prove the title of his vendor except where it has become an issue.” PER PETER-ODILI JSC

POSSESSION- CONDITION WHERE A COURT CAN ASCRIBE POSSESSION TO A PARTY

“When the issue as in this case is which of two claimants has a better right of possession to and/or occupation of a piece or parcel of land in dispute, the law will ascribe such possession and/or occupation to the person who proves a better title thereto.” PER PETER-ODILI JSC

RE-OPENING OF ISSUES OF FACT-WHEN IS AN APPELLATE COURT IS ALLOWED TO RE-OPEN ISSUES OF FACTS

“On appeal, there are rules of practice and one of the cardinal rules is that an appellate court should not re-open issues of fact unless there is a strong basis for that, such as where the fact supposedly laid to rest is shown to be perverse, illegal or not a proper exercise of judicial discretion. PER PETER-ODILI JSC

IDENTITY OF LAND- EFFECT OF WHERE PARTIES ARE AD IDEM ON THE IDENTITY OF LAND

“The law is well settled that where the parties, by the evidence adduced both oral and documentary are ad idem on the identity of the land in dispute, the fact that different names are ascribed to it or that the area where it is located is called different names is not fatal to the case of the party claiming.” PER KEKERE-EKUN JSC

SALE OF FAMILY LAND-WHEN CAN THE SALE OF FAMILY LAND BE VALID OR VOID AB INITIO

“It is essential to the validity of sale of family land that the head of family must join in the conveyance and the principal members of the family must consent to the transaction. Such a combination of parties to the conveyance of family land by the head of family and the principal members of the family is unimpeachable. Any sale or disposition purporting to transfer family land without these essential customary elements is void ab initio”. PER PETER-ODILI JSC

TITLE TO LAND-DUTY OF A PLAINTIFF CLAIMING TITLE TO LAND

“It is the duty of a plaintiff claiming title to land to show how he or his predecessor-in-title acquired title in one of the five ways or methods recognized in proving title to land.” PER PETER-ODILI JSC

DECLARATION OF TITLE -EVIDENCE REQUIRED TO BE PRODUCED BY THE PLAINTIFF IN A CLAIM FOR DECLARATION OF TITLE TO LAND

“The law is indeed trite that in a claim such as the one at hand for declaration of title to the property in dispute, the Plaintiff must produce sufficient evidence to ascertain the definite and precise boundary of land claimed.” PER MOHAMMED JCA

EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE – ATTITUDE OF APPELLATE COURT IN THE EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE BY A TRIAL COURT

“The attitude of the Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court as the case may be, in respect of evaluation of evidence of a trial court is that in deciding whether or not a trial court properly evaluated the evidence, the essential focus should be on whether the trial court made proper findings and reached the correct judgment upon facts before it. It is not the method or approach that necessarily determines this. Thus, so long as a trial court does not arrive at its judgment merely by considering the case of one party before considering the case of the other, its judgment if right will not be set aside simply on the method of assessment of the evidence or approach to the entire case it may have adopted.” PER PETER-ODILI JSC

SALE OF FAMILY LAND- WHEN CAN THE SALE OF A FAMILY LAND BE VOIDABLE

“A sale of family land by the head of family is only voidable where it is made without the concurrence of principal members of the family. Such a sale is not void ab initio but merely voidable and the family can set aside such a sale if the other members act timeously.” PER PETER-ODILI JSC

DECLARATION OF TITLE TO LAND-ON WHO LIES THE ONUS OF PROOF IN A CLAIM FOR DECLARATION OF TITLE TO LAND

“The Onus of proof lies on the plaintiff who seeks a declaration of title to land and or an injunction to establish with certainty and precision and without inconsistency the area of land to which lies claim relates. The point clearly emphasized is that a declaration to title to land can only be granted in respect of land which has definite precise and accurate boundaries”.
“Therefore a way to discharge the onus of proving the identity of the land in dispute by such description of the land that any surveyor acting on such description could produce an accurate plan of the land in dispute. Thus, the acid test over the years is whether a surveyor, taking the record, could produce a plan showing accurately the land to which title has been given, Another way and I dare say a better and more reliable way of establishing the identity and precise extent of a piece or parcel of land in dispute is by filing an accurate Survey Plan which reflects all the features on such land and showing clearly the boundaries thereof.” PER PETER-ODILI JSC

DECLARATION OF TITLE TO LAND – DUTY OF PLAINTIFF TO PRODUCE SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE

“In a claim for declaration of title to land, the plaintiff must produce sufficient evidence to ascertain the certainty or definiteness of the exact boundary of the land claimed to be entitled to the grant.” PER PETER-ODILI JSC

PLEADING- WHETHER CAN BE CONSTRUED AS EVIDENCE- DUTY OF A PARTY WITH RESPECT TO HIS PLEADINGS

“Pleading is not synonymous with evidence and so cannot be construed as such in the determination of the merit or otherwise of a case. Thus a party who seeks judgment in his favour is required by law to produce adequate credible evidence in support of his pleadings and where there is none, then the averments in the pleading are deemed abandoned. The same principle of law goes for whatever defence a defendant seeks to rely on in the process of demolishing the case against him.” PER PETER-ODILI JSC

DECLARATION OF TITLE – GRANT OF A DECLARATION OF TITLE WHERE THERE IS NO DIFFICULTY IN IDENTIFYING THE LAND IN DISPUTE

“It is also the law that once there is no difficulty in identifying the land in dispute, a declaration of title may be made without it being based on any plan whatsoever.” PER KEKERE-EKUN JSC

DECLARATION OF TITLE TO LAND – WHETHER FAILURE OF A PARTY TO ESTABLISH HIS CLAIM TO SOME PART OF THE LAND SHOULD RESULT IN A DISMISSAL OF HIS CLAIM

“Where a party is claiming a declaration of title to land fails to establish his claim to some part of the land that should not result in the dismissal of his claim to the other part of the land. Furthermore, where a claimant lays claim to a large parcel of land but succeeds in proving the boundaries and title to a smaller parcel of the land, he is entitled to a declaration of title in respect of the smaller part of the land originally in dispute which he had proved with certainty. This for the simple reason that a court may grant less but not more than the land in dispute.” PER PETER-ODILI JSC

DECLARATION OF TITLE- WHEN A SURVEY PLAN CAN BE DISPENSED WITH IN A CLAIM FOR DECLARATION OF TITLE

“Where there is no difficulty in identifying the extent of the land in dispute or the parties have agreed that an identifiable piece of land is in dispute between them, even if they refer to that land by different names, a declaration of title to land can be made without a plan thereof. Therefore, in a claim for declaration title, once there are some descriptions in the evidence which make a disputed land ascertainable the identity of the land is proved and a grant can be made with or without a survey plan.” PER PETER-ODILI JSC

CASES CITED

Adedibu V Makanjuola 10 WACA 33Adenle Vs Olude (20021 9 – 10 SC 124Adimora V Aiufo (1988) 3 NWLR (PT. 80 1Ajibulu V Ajayi (2004) 11 NWLR (PT. 885) 458Akinhanmi V Daniel (1977) 6 SC 125Akinhanmi Vs Daniel (19971 6 SC 125:Arabambi V Advance Bevereges Ind. Ltd (2005) 19 NWLR (PT. 959) 1 AT 28Arabe V Asanlu (1980) 5-7 SC 78 AT 85- 87Aro Vs Obaloro (19681 NMLR 238Aromire V Awoyemi (1972) 1 ALL NLR (PT.L) 10 NWLR (PT. 721) 468Baioden Vs Enock Iromwanimu & Anr (19951 SCNJ 205Baruwa V Ogunsola (1938) 4 WACA 159Bello V Eweka (1981) 1 SC 101City Property Dev. Ltd V A. G. Lagos State (1976 1 SC 71Damini & Anor. Vs Abraham & Ors. (2001) 16 NWLR FPT,7381 20; (20011 6 SC 154Diamond Bank Ltd. Vs Partnership Investment Co. Ltd. & Anor. (2009) 18 NWLR (PT.11721 67Dosunmu V Joto (1987) 2 NSCC 1182 SCEkpendu V Erika (1959) SCNLR 186)Eletiko V Aroyewuni (1959) SCNLR 308Emegokwue V Okadigbo (1973) NMLR 192Emiri V Imieyeh (1999) 4 NWLR (PT. 599) 442 AT 463 & 465 Esangbedo V The State (1989) 7 SC (PT. 1) 36 AT 43 – 44Ezeokeke V Uga (1962) 2 SCNLR 197Ezeudu V Obiagwu (1986) NWLR (PT. 21) 208Fasoro V Beyioku (1988) 2 NWLR (PT. 76) 263Fayehun V Fadoju (2000) 6 NWLR (PT. 661) 390 SCIbuluye V Dikko (1978) 6 SC 97Imah V Okgbe (1993) 9 NWLR (PT. 316) 159Jadesinmi V Okotie-Eboh & Ors (1989) 4 NWLR (PT. 113) AT 115Kodilnye V Odu (1935) 2 WACA 336Kwadzo V Adjei (1944) 10 WACA 274Lukan V Ogunsusi (1972) 5 SC 40Makanjuola V Balogun (1989) 3 NWLR PT. 108) 192Motunwase V Sorungbe (1988) 4 NWLR (PT. 92) 90Ojoh V Kamaly & Ors (2005) 2 SC (PT. 11) 1 AT 24Okedare V Adebara (1994) 6 NWLR (PT. 349) 157 AT 173 – 174 SCOlohunde V Adeyeju (2000) 10 NWLR (PT. 676) 562Olorunfemi V Asho (2000) 2 NWLR (PT. 642) 143Olusanmi V Oshasona (1992) 6 NWLR (PT. 245) 22 AT 29Onyema Oke Vs Amos Eke (1982) 12 SC 218Rotimi V Macregor (1974) 1 ALL NLR (PT. 11) 325Salami Vs Oke (19871 4 NWLR (PT.631 1Sogunle V Akerele (1967) NMLR 58Solomon V Mogaji (1982) 11 SC 1Tanko Vs The State (20091 4 NWLR (PT.11311 430Woluchem V Gudi (1981) 5 SC 291

STATUTES REFERRED TO

Evidence Act

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT

May 10, 2025

MICHAEL AIYEOLOA VS RAMOTA YEKINI PEDRO

Legalpedia Citation: (2014-05) Legalpedia (SC) 12111 In the Supreme Court of Nigeria Fri May 16, 2014 Suit Number: SC 102/2004 CORAM MUHAMMAD SAIFULLAH MUNTAKA-COOMASSIE, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT […]