NAPHTALI SANABORN ABRAHAM & ANOR vs. THEOPHILUS BAÁJON & ANOR
April 13, 2025WENG BAHEMBA IORHEM vs. THE STATE
April 13, 2025THE COMPTROLLER, NIGERIA IMMIGRATION SERVICE ADAMAWA STATE COMMAND & ANOR vs. AHMADU DANLADI SAIDU
Legalpedia Citation: (2022-06) Legalpedia 96138 (CA)
In the Court of Appeal
HOLDEN AT YOLA
Fri Dec 8, 2017
Suit Number: CA/YL/72/2016
CORAM
HON. JUSTICE, OYEBISI FOLAYEMI OMOLEYE JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL
HON. JUSTICE, JAMES SHEHU ABIRIYI JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL
HON. JUSTICE, SAIDU TANKO HUSAINI JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL
PARTIES
1.THE COMPTROLLER, NIGERIA IMMIGRATION SERVICE ADAMAWA STATE COMMAND
2.MR. ADAMU MOHAMMED
APPELLANTS
AHMADU DANLADI SAIDU
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
APPEAL, CIVIL LAW AND PROCEDURE, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, EVIDENCE, LAND LAW, STATUTE, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE.
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The Respondent as Plaintiff had instituted action against the Appellants as Defendants in the High Court of Justice of Adamawa State. The Respondent claimed for declaration of title to landed property described as No. M90 Mubi GRA measuring an area of 3005.37 square metres and situate in Mubi and covered by Statutory Certificate of Occupancy No. ADS/20984; an order directed on the defendants now appellants to vacate the property, and a restraining order against them among other reliefs sought. The case of the Respondent was that, a house described as No. M90, Mubi G.R.A, covering an area of about 3005.37 square meters lying and situate at G.R.A Mubi, Mubi North Local Government Area of Adamawa State, was on the 1st day of September, 2004 allocated to him vide allocation letter dated 1st September, 2004, by virtue of his position as the Zonal Engineer of Adamawa State Ministry of Works and Housing, Mubi Zonal Office. The 1st Appellant was in occupation of the said house as the residence of the Area Commander at the instance of the then government of the North-Eastern State since 1968 wherein the 2nd Appellant, an officer of the 1st Appellant, in-charge of Mubi Area Command, also reside.
Sometimes in the year 2011, the Adamawa State Government came up with a housing policy of “Owners-Occupier” and offered for sale to the respondent, the house in dispute through the State Urban Planning and Development Authority. The Plaintiff paid to the Adamawa State Homes and Savings Ltd., the sum of N610, 000. 00 as consideration for the purchase of the house, and the Certificate of Occupancy No. ADS/20984 was issued to him. The Respondent through his Solicitors thereafter, wrote the Appellants asking them to vacate the premises for him but the Appellants refused to vacate. This led him to institute this suit at the trial Court. Appellants denied the claim and filed a joint Statement of defence on the 30th May, 2014 and later filed an amended Statement of defence dated 11th December, 2015 in respect thereof. The case proceeded to trial, and witnesses were called by parties on both sides with exhibits tendered. At the conclusion of hearing, the trial court delivered judgment and granted the reliefs of the Respondents.
Dissatisfied with the judgment of the High Court, the Appellants lodged the instant appeal vide the Notice of Appeal filed on 1st January, 2017 and containing 6 (six) grounds of appeal.
HELD
Appeal dismissed.
ISSUES
Whether the court below was right in holding that the Respondent (plaintiff) has discharged the burden of proof placed on him to establish title to the house in dispute? (Ground 1and 3 of the Grounds of appeal)
Whether the appellants/defendants were denied their right to fair hearing? (Grounds 2, 4 and 5 of the Grounds of appeal).
RATIONES DECIDENDI
CLAIM- DUTY OF THE CLAIMANT TO ESTABLISH THE RELIEFS SOUGHT BY HIM
“The claim of the respondent at the High Court is encapsulated at paragraph 14 (1-5) of the Statement of Claim. To entitle him to those reliefs it is incumbent on him, as the plaintiff or claimant to lead satisfactory evidence to establish his claim, particularly on those facts over which himself and the Appellants have joined issues on material facts. These material facts are set out in the pleadings, that is the Statement of claim of the respondent at paragraphs 5-14. See the record of appeal at pages 5 – 6. The onus is on the claimant to lead evidence to establish his case by reference to:
The fact that he was in occupation of the property in dispute.
The property in dispute was allocated to him.
The House in dispute is vested in him as the beneficial owner of that property.
There is compliance with the procedure for due process in the acquisition of that property.
The property in dispute is not one that is subject to the claims made by the appellants in relation to the Land Use Act of 1978.” – Per HUSAINI, J.C.A.
OWNER OCCUPIER HOUSING SCHEME-CONDITIONS FOR ELIGIBILITY UNDER THE ADAMAWA STATE OWNEROCCUPIER HOUSING SCHEME LAW,2006
“To be eligible to participate in the Owner Occupier Housing Scheme, the person claiming, that is, the respondent in this case, must establish by his evidence the fact that he met the criteria set out in the law that is, the Adamawa State Owner-Occupier Housing Scheme Law, 2006. That law set out the conditions of eligibility at Section 4 to include:-
“a. The applicant shall be an indigene of the State.
b. The applicant shall be a civil or Public Servant presently occupying one of the State Government Housing Estates slated for the Scheme.” – Per HUSAINI, J.C.A.
CROSS EXAMINATION- CONSEQUENCE OF AN UNSUCCESSFULLY CONDUCTED CROSS EXAMINATION
“The law allows the party on the other side to cross-examine a witness. Unless the party can successfully demolish the case of the adversary through cross-examination and discredit the evidence obtained during examination in Chief, the Plaintiff or such other party would have succeeded in making a case for himself. This is my view and I believe that is the law.” – Per HUSAINI, J.C.A.
TYPES OF EVIDENCE- SUPERIORITY OF REAL OR DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE OVER ORAL EVIDENCE
“Evidence which will render inconsequential the claim of the respondent on this point is the evidence led stating, the contrary that House No. M90 Mubi, GRA was at no time ever occupied by the respondent rather the appellants have since the year 1968 have been the occupants of House No. 90 Mubi, GRA. Much more to that: the appellants are expected to lead evidence of such quality as would displace Exhibit “A” tendered through Pw1 as documentary evidence of the fact of his occupation. Oral evidence alone will not suffice. Oral evidence will have to give way to real or documentary evidence on the same point or issue. See: Obiazikwo V. Obiazikwo (2008) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1090) 551, 579; INEC vs. Oshiomole (2004) NWLR (pt. 1132) 607,67; Odulami V. Nigeran Army (2013) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1367) 20, 57; Shola V. Sunday (2016) LPELR-40519 (CA).” – Per HUSAINI, J.C.A.
COUNTERCLAIM- ESSENCE OF FILING A COUNTERCLAIM
The defence did not file any counter-claim in this case even when there is that need as dictated by facts and the law. See order 25 rule 15 of the High Court Rules of Adamawa State, 2013. Filing of counter-claim is imperative in the circumstance. It is mandatory of the appellants to do so. It is required of them to file a counter-claim and lead evidence thereto if the issue of title or ownership of property in dispute must be resolved in their favour. See Moabison Inter-link associated Limited Vs. UTC Nigeria Plc (2013)LPELR-20 3335 (SC).” – Per HUSAINI, J.C.A.
TITLE TO LAND – BURDEN ON THE PERSON RELYING ON SECTION 1 AND SECTION 49 OF THE LAND USE ACT TO SHOW HOW THEY BECAME OWNERS OF THE LAND
“The person or agency (as the appellants) who rely on Section 49 of the Land Use Act 1978 to submit that title is vested in them, have the burden duty on him/them to lead evidence to prove same or state how as the claimants, they became OWNERS of the property in dispute, as understood in law. There is no such evidence. There was no attempt made by them to tender any of the documents referred to by them, of title, not even letters of allocation of the property at No. M90 Mubi, GRA to them. That is what their pleadings state as can be seen at paragraphs 4, 9, 11,14 of the Statement of defence. Those documents were never produced or tendered in evidence at the trial court. This failure or omission is akin to withholding of evidence on the part of the appellants by virtue of Section 167 (d) of the Evidence Act, 2011. Evidence which could be and is not produce would if produced be unfavourable to the person who withholds it. See: Mozie & ors Vs. Mbamalu & Ors (2006) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1003) 466.
It is my view therefore that the appellants on whom the onus lies to establish their claim to title to House No. M90 Mubi, GRA had failed to discharge that burden. They cannot be the owners of the property in question, even as an agency of the Federal Government. In this connection, Section 49 of the Land Use Act cannot also avail them and same will not be invoked in their favour.
Parties or persons who can take advantage and the benefits of the provisions of Sections 1 and 49 of Land Use Act are persons or parties, even as agents or agencies of the Federal Government, are shown to be the owners of that property, who produced relevant evidence or title documents to support their claim. See: Oyeneyin V. Akinkugbe (2010) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1184) 265. Section 49 of the Land Use Act should in my opinion be understood and applied accordingly, in that regard.” – Per HUSAINI, J.C.A.
GROUND OF APPEAL- WHETHER A GROUND OF APPEAL MUST RELATE TO THE RATIO IN A COURT’S DECISION
“A complaint or challenge by any ground of appeal must relate to the ratio in the decision of the court. In otherwords a ground of appeal must arise from the decision of court appealed against otherwise that ground of appeal and issue derived from the ground can be adjudged as incompetent.” – Per HUSAINI, J.C.A.
FAIR HEARING- WHETHER COMPLAINTS BORDERING ON WANT OF FAIR HEARING MUST BE APPARENT ON THE RECORD OF APPEAL
“Allegations bordering on want of hearing are serious complaints or indictments leveled on the courts. Such complaints can only succeed if the person alleging it can prove by reference to the pages of the record of appeal, that his complaint is not only genuine but apparent on the record of appeal.
Fanciful allegations and complaints which cannot be traced to the record of appeal are nothing but nonsensical and should fall by the way side.” – Per HUSAINI, J.C.A.
FAIR HEARING- WHETHER A PARTY WHO SLEPT OVER HIS RIGHT TO CROSS EXAMINATION CAN COMPLAIN OF LACK OF FAIR HEARING
“Such cannot be the basis to ground complaints for lack of fair hearing, certainly not where the complainant is the architect of his own misfortune. The person who slept over his rights to cross-examination cannot be seen to lodge a complaint for lack of hearing. See: Nwadiogbu V. Imo River Basin (2011) 12 SCM 225,….” – Per HUSAINI, J.C.A.
FAIR HEARING-WHETHER FORMULATION OF ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION BY THE COURT CONSTITUTE A BREACH OF RIGHT TO FAIR HEARING
“…nor does it constitute a breach of right to fair hearing where the courts in exercise of its discretion in putting matters in better perspectives, goes ahead to formulate issues for determination in the case. Courts are known to have exercised such discretion over time. See: Wachukwu & Ors Vs. Owunuwame (supra).” – Per HUSAINI, J.C.A.
CASES CITED
NONE
STATUTES REFERRED TO
Adamawa State Owner Occupier Housing Scheme Law, 2006
High Court Rules of Adamawa State, 2013
