CORAM

---

IGNATIUS IGWE AGUBE Justice Court of Appeal

CORDELIA IFEOMA JOMBO-OFO Justice Court of Appeal

MUSLIM SULE HASSAN Justice Court of Appeal

---

PARTIES

---

TERSEER ASAN

APPELLANTS 

---

GRACE ABELLEGAH

RESPONDENTS 

---

AREA(S) OF LAW

---

APPEAL, COUNTER CLAIM, COURT, LAND LAW, LAW OF EVIDENCE, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

 

---

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Respondent commenced this action before the Benue State Upper Area Court Gboko over the ownership of a plot of land situate at Mbaav-Mbatoko Gboko measuring 350ft x 224ft, wherein he sought against the Appellant, a declaration of title to the land in dispute. At the end of the trial, judgment was entered in favour of the Appellant. Dissatisfied with this, the Respondent filed an appeal before the High Court of Justice, Benue State, which allowed the appeal and set aside the Judgment of the Upper Area Court Gboko. The Appellant, aggrieved by that decision filed a Notice of Appeal, to the Court of Appeal, Makurdi Division, wherein he raised Seven Grounds of Appeal, praying the Court to restore the decision of the Upper Area Court and set aside the judgment of High Court, Benue State.

 

---

HELD

---

Appeal Dismissed

 

---

ISSUES

---

1. Whether in the face of the contradictions and inconsistencies that abound in the oral and documentary evidence of the Respondent concerning the description of the disputed land, the lower court was right to hold that the description of the land as stated by PW1 represents a clear identity of the disputed land?

2. Whether the lower court was right in holding that the disputed land is the same with the land Asan Andohol sold to the Respondent?

3. Whether the lower court was right to hold that the trial court did not evaluate the documentary evidence before arriving at her conclusion that the Respondent did not sign Exhibit A, despite the fact that there is sufficient compelling and credible evidence on record to support the trial court’s decision?

4. Whether the lower court rightly held that the land sold to the Respondent was measured without considering the case of the Appellant on the issue?

5. Whether the lower court was right in holding that there is no compelling evidence on record to support the award made by the trial court in favor of the Appellant, and entering judgment in favor of the Respondent?

6. Whether the lower court was right in setting aside the judgment of the trial court and dismissing the Appellant’s counter-claim without considering the Appellant’s evidence led on the counter claim?

 

---

RATIONES DECIDENDI

---

TITLE TO LAND –REQUIREMENT FOR AN AWARD OF TITLE TO LAND TO A PARTY

---

“It is settled law that the issues of identity of land where a party claims same must be clear for a court to award title to that land to the party who sought same. The identity of such a land must come with a clear description of the land which must be clear and certain before the trial Court.

See the authority of Ministry of Lands & Housing, Bauchi State v. Tirwun (2017) LPELR 43314 (CA) at Pp 19 -22, paras C – E where this Court reiterated the position of the law in the following words:

“It is an age long principle that any person claiming interest in land must prove the exact location of the land and be precise to which his claim relates. This is the foremost and fundamental duty on a claim in a land dispute – Epi v. Aigbedion (1972) 10 SC 53, Akeredolu v. Akinremi (1989) 3 NWLR (Pt. 108_ 164…”

-PER M. S. HASSAN, J.C.A

 

---

CONTRADICTORY EVIDENCE- NATURE OF CONTRADICTION IN THE EVIDENCE OF A WITNESS THAT CAN RENDER SUCH EVIDENCE INADMISSIBLE

---

“It is equally trite law that it is only material Contradiction in the evidence of two parties that renders same inadmissible and may affect the findings of a court.

-PER M. S. HASSAN, J.C.A

 

---

CASES CITED

---

Not Available

 

---

STATUTES REFERRED TO

---

Evidence Act 2011 (as amended)

 

---

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT