“The law is settled that the first duty of a party claiming title to land is to show the identity of the land in dispute in relation to the boundaries. The description of the boundaries must be proved with exactitude, certainty and precision so as to ensure that the evidence adduced can lead a Surveyor to produce an accurate Plan of the land. In a nutshell, proof of ownership of land clearly means the modus an individual employs in the determination of his right in a land dispute. It is the protection and degree of control a person has over a parcel of land. A party who alleges claim and control over a piece of land must by law tender before the Court sufficient material evidence in black and white to show clearly the boundaries and identity of the land. The erudite law lord of the Apex Court per TOBI, JSC (as he then was) in the case of Okoko Vs. Dakolo (2006) ALL FWLR (PT.336) 201 at 239 has this to say on the evidence of boundary: “…Evidence of boundary is very important in land disputes because it is really the centre of the dispute. Once the boundary is known, the Court is in good position to determine the ownership, with the aid of other relevant evidence…”

“The Apex Court in D.O. Idundun & Ors V. Daniel Okumagba (1976) LPELR-1431 (SC) set out the ways of proving title or ownership to land inter alia: By traditional evidence, by production of document of title; by proving acts of ownership and possession, by proving acts of long possession and enjoyment of land and by proof of possession of connected and adjacent land. It should be noted that the five ways of proving title to land are not mutually connected and the Court in Bartholomew Onwubuariri & Ors V. Isaac Igboasoyi & Ors (2011) LPELR-754 (SC) opined thus: “That one can establish ownership by any of the five means and need not prove all. However, one can also decide to prove one’s title by using more than one way as stipulated above. See also Olowolagba V. Bakare (1995) 4 NWLR (PT. 387) 116 AT 124; Idundun V. Okumagba (1976) 9-10 S.C 227; Atanda V. Ajani (1989) 3 NWLR (PT. 111) 511 At 535 and Balogun V. Akanji (1988) 1 NWLR (PT. 70) 301.”

“In resolving this Issue, the question of boundary identity of the land in dispute which is key, the law is trite on a plethora of decided authorities, that a Plaintiff seeking a declaration of title has the onus of showing with definitive certainty the identity and location of the land together with its boundaries and features and the party Counter-Claiming title over the same piece of land has the same onus placed on him by law to prove on the balance of probability the identity and boundaries of the disputed land. By implication, the burden of proof does not shift to the Claimant alone to prove his title but on the Counter-Claimant since they are both laying claim on the same subject matter.”

“The law is settled that where parties derive their title from a common source or grantor, the principle of equity with regards to priority would serve as a working tool to ameliorate or quell the Issue that may have arisen. Per ONU, JSC at pages 14-15, paras. F-A in the case of Samson Owie V. Solomon Ighiwi (2005) LPELR-2846 (SC) opined thus: “Indeed, where the Issue of priority of interest arises and the grant relates to the same parcel of land, then the first in time takes priority, (Qui prior est tempore potior est jure). See Awoyegbe V. Ogbeide (1988) 1 NWLR (PT. 73) 695; Tewogbade V. Obadina (1994) 4 NWLR (PT. 338) 326, (1994) 4 SCNJ 161.”

“As can be gleaned from the above, particularly the parameters set out in Bartholomew Onwubuariri & Ors V. Isaac Igboasoyi & Ors (supra) that a party can prove his title by any of the five means stated in Idundun V. Okumagba (supra) and need not prove all.”

“The 7th edition of the Black’s Law Dictionary delineate the word Survey as the measuring of a tract of land and its boundaries and contents, a map indicating the results of such measurements. A Survey Plan is also defined as a document that measures the boundary of a parcel of land to give an accurate measurement and description of that land. A Survey Plan is inherent with some basic features which include: “The name of the owner of the land surveyed, the address or description of the land surveyed, the size of the land surveyed, the drawn out portion of the land surveyed and mapped out on the survey plan document, the surveyor who drew up the survey plan and the date it was drawn, the beacon numbers and a stamp showing that the land is free from Government acquisition.” All these were captured in Exhibit C and in my opinion; it does not fall short of what a Survey Plan should be.

Section 2 of the Survey Law of Benue State Vol. 2, 2004 stipulates that: “Surveyor means a licensed surveyor or an officer of the survey department authorized by the Director or the surveyor General to carry out surveys.”

“In Bassey Akpan Archibong V. State (2006) LPELR-537 (SC); it was held that: “In every case, whether Civil or Criminal, objection to the admissibility of a document must be made when the document is offered in evidence. Where no objection is raised when offered, the document will be admitted and the opposing party cannot later complain on its admissibility unless the document is by law inadmissible. Where the law declares a document inadmissible for non-compliance with its provisions, the document cannot be admitted in evidence; not even by consent of parties. See Agbeyin V State (1967) NMLR 129”

“Per OGUNDARE, JSC at pages 46-47, paras. E-B in Chief Igboama Ezekwesili & Ors V. Chief Beniah Agbapuonwu & Ors (2003) LPELR-1204 (SC) opined thus: “The criterion for the attachment of probative value to exhibit is relevancy, the heartbeat, the centre pin and pivot of the law of evidence. If a party proves that a document is relevantly connected with his case or clearly forms part of the case so much so that it adds to the erection of a common evidential scale in the matter, a trial Judge will certainly attach evidential value to it. And in the exercise, a trial Judge will take into consideration the totality of the exhibit and not bits or portion of it. Once the entire exhibit has evidential value, probative value will be attached to it. As a matter of adjectival law, the two mean the same thing as both reflect the chain of proof in our law. While it is the duty of the trial Judge to admit document and attach probative value to it, like in what area in the trial process, he has not the last say on it.”

“It is generally recognized and even settled in law that the traditional or cardinal duty of evaluating the evidence adduced in a given case and ascribing probative value thereto lies within the bossom of the trial Court. See the case of Mr. Audu Otukpo V. Apa John & Anor (2012) LPELR-25053 (SC); and an appellate Court does not unduly interfere with the findings of the trial Court Leonard Ezeafulukwe V. John Holt Limited (1996) LPELR-1196 (SC). However, the function of the Appellate Court was established in the case of T.O. Wilson & Anor V. A.B. Oshin & Ors (2000) LPELR-3497 (SC) where per Karibi Whyte JSC, at pages 36-37, paras E-A opined that: “The function of an Appellate Court is to determine the Case on the grounds of error of law or facts alleged, and whether the Court below has come to the right decision. It is not necessary whether the trial Court was right in the manner the case was decided, but whether the reason were right. The Appellate Court is concerned only with correcting the errors of law or fact alleged in the decision of the trial Court. See Ukejianya V. Uchedu (1950) 13 WACA 45 at 46.”

“The Apex Court in Mr. Ademola Adewunmi Odutola & Ors V. Professor Akin Mabogunje & Ors (2013) LPELR-19909 (SC) opined thus: “There are plethora of case law on the subject matter of what a trial Court should take into consideration in evaluating evidence. See Mogaji V. Odofin (1978) 4 SC 91 at 94, where this Court said as follows: “In short before a Judge before whom evidence is adduced by parties in a civil case comes to a decision as to which evidence he believes or accepts and which evidence he rejects, he should first of all put the totality of the evidence adduced by the Plaintiff on one side of the scale and that of the Defendant on the other side of the scale and weigh them together. He would then see which is heavier not by the numbers of witnesses called by each party but the quality of the probative value of the testimonies of those witnesses.”

“In Oba E.A. Ipinlaiye II V. Chief Julius Olukotun (1996) LPELR-1532 (SC); it was held that: “It is the cardinal rule of evidence and practice in civil as well as in criminal cases that an objection to the admissibility of a document sought to be tendered in evidence is immediately taken when it is offered in evidence. Barring some exceptions whereby in law certain documents are rendered inadmissible (consent or no consent of the parties notwithstanding) for failure to comply with the provisions of such law (such as the provisions of Section 15 of the Land Instrument Registration Act) the rule remains inviolate that where objection has not been raised by the opposing party to the reception in evidence of a document or other evidence, the document or other evidence would be admitted and the opposing party cannot afterwards be heard to complain about its admission. See Chief Bruno Etim and others V. Chief Okon Ekpe & Anor, supra at page 36-37.”

“Of course, the aim or the need to prove the identity of any land in dispute is to ensure that enforceable orders can be made in relation thereto, and so to obviate the chances of any further judicial dispute over it. See Saura Adeyori & Ors V. Laniyi Adeniran & 1 OR, (2001) FWLR (PT. 76) at paras. E-F, per ADEKEYE, JSC (as he then was); “…the purpose of laying emphasis in ascertaining the exact area of land in dispute is to enable the party or anybody claiming through to know the precise area to which Judgment of Court relates for purposes of enforcement, and to obviate the possibility of future litigation on that particular area Nwogo V. Njoku (1990) 3 NWLR (PT. 140) PGS 570 at 582 paras D-E.”