“A declaration of title to land by a Court of competent jurisdiction in favour of one party and against another or others, is a serious act which will translate in the extinguishing of ownership rights in the land on the part of the person or persons against whom the order is made. The foregoing and the general principle of law to the effect that he who asserts must prove, is the reason why it is well settled principle of law that a party who desires the Court to make a declaration of title in its favour must clearly establish by cogent and reliable evidence, that such party is the owner of the land in question. The Supreme Court in the case of Onovo & Ors V. Mba & Ors (2014) LPELR-23035(SC),(P. 27, paras. A-E) per OGUNBIYI, J.S.C. reiterated the foregoing thus: “The law is also settled that in a claim for declaration of title to land, the onus lies on the plaintiffs/appellants to establish their claim on the strength of their own case and not rely on the weakness of the defendants/respondents. Therefore, the plaintiffs must satisfy the court that based on their pleadings and evidence they are entitled to the declaration sought. See Odunuke v. Ofomata (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1225) 404 at 445. Also the case of Ekanem v. Akpan (1991) 8 NWLR (Pt. 211) 616 at 631 where it was held by this court that: “In an action for declaration of titleto land it is trite law that the plaintiff must prove title or at least prove to have been in exclusive possession as approved in the case of Ekpo v. Ita II NLR 68 and held further in the case of Idundun v. Okumagba (1976) NMLR 200. Further he must on the strength of his case and not on the weakness of the defence.” See: Section 137(1) of the Evidence Act; Kopek Construction Ltd. V. Ekisola(2010) LPELR-1703(SC); Olatomide & Anor v. Ikumuyilo & Ors(2019) LPELR-48374(CA); and Olatunji & Ors v. Ayeni(2019) LPELR-48495(CA).”

“Counsel on both sides of this appeal have correctly stated the possible ways that ownership of land might be proven, to wit: (1) By traditional history or evidence or; (2) By documents of title or; (3) By various acts of ownership, numerous and positive and extending over a length of time as to warrant the inference of ownership or; (4) By acts of long enjoyment and possession of the land or; (5) By proof of possession of adjacent land in circumstances which renders it probable that the owner of such adjacent land would in addition be the owner of the land in dispute. See: Ajibulu v. Ajayi (2013) LPELR-21860(SC)

“A party is at liberty to choose any way they wish to prove their ownership of land, so long as they establish same on the balance of probability which is the standard of proof in civil cases, including cases of declaration of title to land. In this appeal, the Respondent at trial, decided to go with proof by purchase/production of documents of title, coupled with the traditional history of her predecessor in title, who sold to her. This is a perfectly acceptable means of establishing ownership of land and a careful examination of the testimonies of the Respondent’s witnesses coupled with the exhibits tendered, reveals that the Respondent proved that she bought the land from a particular person and established by traditional history how title devolved to that Vendor. See: Sogunro & Ors v. Yeku & Ors (2017) LPELR-41905(SC); and Surakatu v. Adekunle (2019) LPELR-46412(CA).”

“Damages have been defined as compensation in money, that is an amount of money awarded by a Court of law to a successful plaintiff/claimant as compensation for loss or harm of any kind which result either from the commission of tort by the other party or breach of contract.

“Unlike special damages, general damages do not have to be particularly pleaded and proved by a Claimant, rather it is awarded as part of the natural consequences of the Tortfeasor’s actions. See: Ifesinachi Industries Nigeria Ltd & Anor v. Vinee Oil Ltd (2015) LPELR-25130(CA). The foregoing is even more true for trespass to land which is actionable per se and attracts damages upon proof, regardless of whether actual harm is proven or not. See: Aladi v. Ogbu (2018) LPELR-43691(CA).”

“The Supreme Court in the case of Oyeneyin & Anor v. Akinkugbe & ANOR (2010) LPELR-2875(SC) (P. 25, paras. A-G) Per ADEKEYE, J.S.C., gave a guideline on when an Appellate Court will interfere with the quantum of damages awarded by a trial Court in a claim of damages for trespass thus: “Generally the trial court has discretion as to the quantum of damages it would award in a claim of damages for trespass. The assessment does not depend on any legal rules- but the discretion of court is however limited by usual caution or prudence and remoteness of damage when considering its award of damages. An appellate court will not interfere with an award of damages by a trial court unless in situations which include (a) Where the Court acted under wrong principles of law (b) Where the Court acted in disregard of applicable principles of law (c) Where the Court acted in misapprehension of facts (d) Where the Court took into consideration irrelevant matters and disregarded relevant matters whilst considering its award (e) Where injustice will result if the appellate court does not act (f) Where the amount awarded is ridiculously low or ridiculously high that it must have been an erroneous estimate of the damages. U.B.N. v. Odusote Bookstores Ltd. (1995) 9 NWLR (Pt.421) pg. 558 Solanke v. Ajibola (1969) 1 NMLR pg. 45 Ziks Press Ltd. v. Alvan Ikoku (1951) 13 WACA 188 Thompson v. Adetope (1961) 1 ANLR Pg. 322 ACB Ltd v. Apugo (2001) 5 NWLR (pt.707) pg. 653.”