CORAM
JUMMAI HANNATU SANKEY JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL
IBRAHIM SHATA BDLIYA JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL
EBIOWEI TOBI JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL
PARTIES
1. VICTOR ILIYA JATAU
2. YOEL IDRIS JATAU
APPELLANTS
1. EZEKIEL LASS JATAU
2. EZRA JATAU
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
APPEAL, COURT, CUSTOMARY LAW, JUDGMENT AND ORDER, LAND LAW, LAW OF EVIDENCE, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The Appellants were the Respondents at the lower Court and Plaintiffs at the trial Upper Area Court, Filiya; while the Respondents were the Appellants at the lower Court and Defendants at the trial Upper Area Court.
The Claim of the Appellants at the Upper Area Court Filiya, was for a declaration of title to portions of land which was given to their fathers, (Iliya and Idris) as gifts by Jatau during his lifetime, and which land subsequently devolved on them by inheritance from their deceased fathers. In proof of their claim, the Appellants adduced evidence through four witnesses while the Respondents in their defence, adduced evidence through three witnesses. At the close of trial, Judgment was entered in favour of the Appellants. This resulted in an Appeal filed at the lower Court by the Respondents. After the Appeal was heard, the lower Court delivered its Judgment, wherein it upheld the Appeal and set aside the Judgment of the trial Upper Area Court Filiya. In addition, it declared the Respondents as the rightful owners of the land in dispute.
Dissatisfied, the Appellants, with the leave of Court sought and obtained, filed an Appeal to this Court wherein they seek an order allowing the appeal and setting aside the Judgment of the lower Court sitting on appeal and an order upholding the decision of the trial Upper Area Court, Filiya confirming title in the disputed land on the Appellants.
HELD
Appeal Allowed
ISSUES
Whether or not the Appellants proved their root of title of the customary gift to the land in dispute before the trial Court?
Whether the lower Court was right when it found that the Appellants were “placed in possession” based on the evidence adduced at the trial Court?
Whether the Respondents are entitled to the order made by the lower Court declaring them as the rightful owners of the land in dispute in the absence of any counterclaim?
RATIONES DECIDENDI
COURT – DUTY OF AN APPELLATE COURT WITH RESPECT TO APPEALS FROM AREA COURTS WITH REGARD TO MATTERS OF PROCEDURE OR TECHNICALITY
“The law as long settled is that, in dealing with appeals from Area Courts or Customary Courts, an appellate Court is exhorted to be liberal with regard to matters of procedure or technicality, as the whole object of such trials is that the real dispute between the parties should be fairly adjudicated upon. Put another way, appellate Courts are enjoined to look at the substance rather than the form when considering the Judgment from an Area Court. Therefore, great latitude must be given to and broad interpretation placed upon cases decided by an Area Court. Its proceedings have to be carefully scrutinized to ascertain the subject matter of the case, as well as the issues raised therein. See Faleye V Dada (2016) LPELR-40297(SC) 34-36, E-B, per MD Muhammad, JSC, & 39, B-F, per Okoro, JSC; Onwuama V Ezeokoli (2002) LPELR-2712(SC) 10-11, D-A, per Uwaifo, JSC; Kamalu V Umunna (1997) 5 NWLR (Pt. 505) 321.
In Agbasi V Obi (1998) 2 NWLR (Pt. 536) 1, 14, Belgore JSC (as he then was) stated the rational of the law thus:
“The native Courts are Courts of common sense and simplicity, they are never burdened by strict adherence to procedure. They are Courts for quick and cheap manner of dispensation of justice. Most of the time their decisions reflect the very justice and truth of the cases. It is because these Courts are not tied to technicality of procedure that the appellate Court must look to the totality of the proceedings to find who were the parties before them, what were the issues before them and what they have decided.”
Onu JSC, in commenting on this issue, stated at page 18 of the E-Report as follows:
“Indeed, … judgments of Native Courts should be treated differently from those of a High Court. When dealing with such judgments, an appellate Court is entitled to go beyond what appears on the face of the claim and ascertain from the entire evidence before the Native Court (Customary Court or Area Court) what really the nature of the dispute is involved. In other words, that great latitude must be given to, and broad interpretation placed upon Native Court cases and that the whole proceedings, the evidence of the parties and the judgment, must be looked at in order to decide what a Native Court case was about.”
DECLARATION OF TITLE TO LAND – INGREDIENTS A PLAINTIFF MUST PROVE IN A CLAIM FOR DECLARATION OF TITLE TO LAND
“Also, it is a trite principle of law that in a claim for declaration of title to land, the onus is always on the Plaintiff to establish his claim. The standard of proof is on a balance of probabilities or a preponderance of evidence. The usual test is whether the plaintiff has been able to prove to the satisfaction of the Court that he has a better title than the defendant. In addition, a party must establish the method by which he acquired the said title as ownership cannot be claimed without establishing how it came about. The law is that a claimant must satisfy the Court as to:
(a)The precise nature of the title claimed, that is to say whether it is title by original ownership, customary grant, conveyance, sale under customary law, long possession or otherwise; and
(b)Evidence establishing the nature of title claimed.
See Dayya V Dayya (2021) LPELR-56576(CA) 12-15, E-B; Yakubu V Jauoyel (2014) LPELR-22732(SC); Odunukwe V Ofomata (2010) LPELR-2250(SC); Oyeneyin V Akingkube (2010) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1184) 265. PER J.H.SANKEY, J.C.A
CASES CITED
Not Available
STATUTES REFERRED TO