KANUMBU v. GANA & ANOR (2020)

KANUMBU v. GANA & ANOR

(2020)LCN/14732(CA)

In The Court Of Appeal

(GOMBE JUDICIAL DIVISION)

On Wednesday, November 11, 2020

CA/G/464/2018

RATIO

ACTION: REQUIREMENT FOR AN ACTION TO BE PROPERLY CONSTITUTED TO VEST JURISDICTION IN COURT

For an action to be properly constituted so as to vest jurisdiction in the Court to adjudicate on it, there must be a competent Plaintiff and a competent Defendant. Ataguba & Co vs Gura Nig Ltd (2005) All FWLR pt 265 pg 12219 (2005) 2 SCNJ pg 139. PER NDUKWE-ANYANWU, J.C.A.
ACTION: PARTIES TO AN ACTION

The term parties include not only those named in the record of proceedings but also those who have direct interest in the subject matter of the dispute. Ndulue vs Ibezim (2002) 12 NWLR pt 780 pg 139.
Parties to an action have been classified into three namely
(a) Proper parties
(b) Desirable parties and
(c) Necessary parties.
Proper parties are those who though not interested in the Plaintiff’s claims are made parties for some reasons and desirable parties are those who have an interest of who may be affected by the result. Dapialong vs Lalong (2007) 5 NWLR pt 1026 pg 199 Green vs Green (1987) 3 NWLR pt 61 pg 480.
A necessary party to a suit is a party who is not only interested in the subject matter of the proceedings but also a party in whose absence the proceedings could not be fairly dealt with. Consequently, without his being a party to the suit the Court may not be able to effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle all questions involved in the suit. Ojo vs Ogbe (2007) 9 NWLR pt 1040 pg 542, Mobil Oil Plc vs D.E. N.R Ltd (2004) 1 NWLR pt 853 pg 142, Biyu vs Ibrahim (2006) 8 NWLR pt 981 pg 1.
A necessary party to a case is a person whose presence is necessary for the effectual and complete adjudication to the questions involved in the cause or matter. O.k. Contact Point Ltd vs Progress Bank Plc (1999) 5 NWLR pt 604 pg 631, B. O. N Ltd vs Saleh (1999) 9 NWLR pt 618 pg 331, Mobil Oil Plc vs D. E. N. R Ltd (supra).
Where a necessary party is not joined in a case, the Court or Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to entertain the case. Amuda vs Ajobo (1995) 7 NWLR pt 406 pg 170. Tafida vs Bafanawa (1999) 4 NWLR pt 597 pg 70. PER NDUKWE-ANYANWU, J.C.A.
LOCUS STANDI: TESTS TO CDETERMINE WHETHER A PERSON HAS LOCUS STANDI

To determine whether a person has locus standi, or not. There are two tests these are
(i) The action must be justiciable and
(ii) There must be dispute between the parties
See Adesanya vs The President of Nigeria (1981) 5 SC pg 112 Pacers Multi-Dynamics vs Dancing Sister (2012) 1 MJSC pt 82 pg 82. PER NDUKWE-ANYANWU, J.C.A.
LAND LAW: DUTY OF A PLAINTIFF WHO SEEKS DECLARATION OF TITLE TO LAND

A Plaintiff who seeks declaration of title to land must prove his root of title to the land. Where he traces his title to a particular person, he must further prove how that person got his own title or came to have the title vested in him, including where necessary the family that originally owned the land. The burden of proof on the Plaintiff is not discharged even where the scales are evenly weighted between the parties. See Archibong vs Edak (2006) 7 NWLR pt 980 pg 485, Dike vs Okoloedo (1999) 10 NWLR pt 623 pg 359 Otanma vs Youdubagha (2006) 2 NWLR pt 964 pg 337. PER NDUKWE-ANYANWU, J.C.A.
LAND LAW: REQUIREMENT OF A VENDOR TO SEAL THE TRANSACTION IN CUSTOMARY TRANSACTIONS FOR LAND

Furthermore, in customary transactions for land, what the vendor is required to do to seal the transaction is to put the grantee into possession with witnesses. PER NDUKWE-ANYANWU, J.C.A.

CUSTOMARY LAW: REQUIREMENT FOR A GIFT TO BE VALID UNDER CUSTOMARY LAW

For a gift to be valid under the Customary Law, the transaction must be witnessed by witnesses. See Atanda vs Hon Commissioner For Lands and Housing (2017) LPELR 42346 Adedeji vs Oloso (2007) SCNJ pg 411 Folarin Vs Durojaiye(1988) 1 NWLR pt 70 pg 351 Cole vs Folani (1956) 1 FSC pg 66. Akingbade vs Elemosho (1964) LPELR 25225. PER NDUKWE-ANYANWU, J.C.A.

Before Our Lordships:

Jummai Hannatu Sankey Justice of the Court of Appeal

Uzo Ifeyinwa Ndukwe-Anyanwu Justice of the Court of Appeal

James Gambo Abundaga Justice of the Court of Appeal

Between

MALLAM ABDULLAHI M. KANUMBU APPELANT(S)

And

1. BULAMA GANA 2. KONDUGA LOCAL GOVERNMENT COUNCIL RESPONDENT(S)

UZO IFEYINWA NDUKWE-ANYANWU, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): This is an appeal against the judgment of the High Court of Borno State delivered on 8th March, 2018 by Hon. Justice M. S. Umara. The Appellant was the Claimant at the lower Court and claimed the following:
i. A declaration that the Claimant is the holder and lawful owner and has possession of right and interest in and over farmland lying and situate at Moromti village measuring 380 meters at the North, 146 meter on the West at South and 105 meter at the East as specifically measured, on the site plan, as a gift to him by Bulama Fatar
ii. A declaration that the Defendant is not entitled to any right over the said farmland.
iii. A declaration that the Defendant by claiming to be Land officer Konduga Local Government does not confer on him the right to claim Claimant’s land.
iv. A perpetual injunction restraining the Defendant from interfering with the Claimant’s possession/ownership of the said land.

The Claimant had commenced his action against the 1st Respondent as Defendant before the lower Court. The 2nd Respondent subsequently applied to be joined

and was joined as 2nd Defendant. Thereafter, the 2nd Respondent filed his defence and counter-claim and claimed the following reliefs:
(a) A declaration that the Claimant is the rightful owner of the land in new site Mogoromti layout under Konduga Local Government Area of Borno State consisting of about 531, 900 sqm is bounded from the North is the farmland of Sheik Idrisa Khadi in possession of Alh. Ibrahim Farm Cikin Kowa from the East Mogoromti village/settlement from the south Maiduguri to Kano Road and form the West is bounded by former proposed police college.
(b) An order of this Court declaring the purported sale of any part of new site Mogoromti by the Defendant as null and void.
(c) A perpetual injunction restraining the Defendant by himself, his agents or privies or any claiming from him trespassing into the said Mogoromti layout.
(d) Cost of the suit.

During the trial, the Appellant testified for himself and called three (3) other witnesses. The 1st Respondent testified and called one other witness. The parties filed their written addresses and adopted them. The trial judge thereafter, delivered its considered judgment and

dismissed the claim of the Appellant and granted the reliefs of the Respondent as counter-claimants.

The Appellant was dissatisfied hence this appeal. The Appellant filed his Appellant’s notice with five (5) grounds. The Appellant’s brief was filed on 22nd May, 2019 wherein he articulated four (4) issues for determination. They are as follows:
i. “Whether the Appellant has failed to prove his title and that of his grantor as required by the law”
ii. “Whether the 2nd Respondent who applied to be joined as a 2nd Defendant has locus standi to counter-claim and the trial Court to grant all his reliefs sought”
iii. “Whether the non-reconciling the contradictory evidence as to the identity of the land by the 2nd Respondent cannot defeat the counter-claim of the 2nd Respondent”
iv. “Whether the reliefs sought by the 2nd Respondent in his counter-claim predicated from the facts pleaded”

No issue was articulated from ground four and it is hereby struck out.

ISSUE 2
The 2nd issue articulated by the Appellant is on jurisdiction challenging the capacity of the 2nd

Respondent to sue or be sued in this case. It would be recalled that the 2nd Respondent applied to the trial Court to join as an interested party. The lower Court granted that order sought hence the 2nd Respondent was joined as a party in the suit. Thereafter, it filed its defence and counter-claim.

The Appellant’s counsel submitted that the 2nd Respondent had no locus standi as a party to be joined and to counter claim in the suit. Counsel argued that the 2nd Respondent does not have sufficient interest in the land as per its counter-claim. Dw2, the land officer in his evidence stated
“the L.G acquired the land and allocated same to various individuals. The land acquired has already been allocated to individuals.”

See also para 17-22 of the Courter-claim on pg 53 of the Record of Appeal. The counsel argued that the 2nd Respondent no longer have sufficient interest in the land since it had acquired the land and allocated it to many other individuals. CBN vs Okefe (2016) 4 NWLR pt 1520 pg 354 Adelakan vs CBN (2016) AFWLR 854 pg 1820, Taiwo Vs Adegboro (2011) 11 NWLR pt 1154 pg 562.

Counsel urged the Court to hold that

the 2nd Respondent lacked the locus standi to sue and be sued as it had not disclosed from its pleadings and evidence that it had sufficient interest in the land it counter-claimed.

In Response the Respondents argued that the 2nd Respondent applied for an order for joinder in the trial Court which was granted. Counter-claim is only available to a Defendant who also wants to claim the subject and this is provided for by Order 21 Rule 6 of the Borno State High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2017.

Counsel argued that a party has locus standi to sue in an action if he is able to show to the satisfaction of the Court that his civil right and obligations have been or are in danger of being infringed. In this case, the 2nd Respondent’s obligation under the Land Use Act, 1978 were being threatened. Counsel therefore urged the Court to hold that the 2nd Respondent had the locus standi to sue and be sued.

RESOLUTION
For an action to be properly constituted so as to vest jurisdiction in the Court to adjudicate on it, there must be a competent Plaintiff and a competent Defendant. Ataguba & Co vs Gura Nig Ltd (2005) All FWLR pt 265 pg 12219

(2005) 2 SCNJ pg 139.
The term parties include not only those named in the record of proceedings but also those who have direct interest in the subject matter of the dispute. Ndulue vs Ibezim (2002) 12 NWLR pt 780 pg 139.
Parties to an action have been classified into three namely
(a) Proper parties
(b) Desirable parties and
(c) Necessary parties.
Proper parties are those who though not interested in the Plaintiff’s claims are made parties for some reasons and desirable parties are those who have an interest of who may be affected by the result. Dapialong vs Lalong (2007) 5 NWLR pt 1026 pg 199 Green vs Green (1987) 3 NWLR pt 61 pg 480.
A necessary party to a suit is a party who is not only interested in the subject matter of the proceedings but also a party in whose absence the proceedings could not be fairly dealt with. Consequently, without his being a party to the suit the Court may not be able to effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle all questions involved in the suit. Ojo vs Ogbe (2007) 9 NWLR pt 1040 pg 542, Mobil Oil Plc vs D.E. N.R Ltd (2004) 1 NWLR pt 853 pg 142, Biyu vs Ibrahim (2006) 8 NWLR

pt 981 pg 1.
A necessary party to a case is a person whose presence is necessary for the effectual and complete adjudication to the questions involved in the cause or matter. O.k. Contact Point Ltd vs Progress Bank Plc (1999) 5 NWLR pt 604 pg 631, B. O. N Ltd vs Saleh (1999) 9 NWLR pt 618 pg 331, Mobil Oil Plc vs D. E. N. R Ltd (supra).
Where a necessary party is not joined in a case, the Court or Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to entertain the case. Amuda vs Ajobo (1995) 7 NWLR pt 406 pg 170. Tafida vs Bafanawa (1999) 4 NWLR pt 597 pg 70.
In this case, the 2nd Respondent felt it was a necessary party and applied to be joined and was so joined.
To determine whether a person has locus standi, or not. There are two tests these are
(i) The action must be justiciable and
(ii) There must be dispute between the parties
See Adesanya vs The President of Nigeria (1981) 5 SC pg 112 Pacers Multi-Dynamics vs Dancing Sister (2012) 1 MJSC pt 82 pg 82.
Counsel referred the Court to Section 2(1)(b) of the Land Use Act which states that all other lands not in an urban area are subject to the control and management of the Local Government within

the area of jurisdiction. In this case the land in dispute is under Konduga Local Government Area.
The Appellant in his pleadings pleaded that the land he is claiming is a farm land in Moromti village in Kodunga Local Government Area. Therefore, it would be taken as land in the Rural area and would be under the Local Government Area. See Sidikwu vs Dalori (1996) 5 NWLR pt 447 pg 151.
Counsel also referred to Section 6(3) of the Act which provides thus:
“it shall be lawful for a Local Government to enter, use and occupy for public purpose any land within its jurisdiction.”
Section 4 of the Act also provides that the Local Government has exclusive right to lands occupied by it to the exclusion of all persons including the 2nd Respondent and excluding the Government of Borno State.
What the above sections of the Act mean is that the 2nd Respondent under Section 2(1)(b) and Section 6(3) has vested interest to protect land in the Rural area. Also the 2nd Respondent is saddled with the responsibility of the control and management of the land within the jurisdiction of the Local Government. Also, the 2nd Respondent has the

responsibility of allocating land which it is vested with to individual residents in the Local Government Area. It also organizes for residential plots, agricultural, commercial plots and for other purposes.
The 2nd Respondent therefore cannot sit and watch someone take away land it has already legally allocated to the citizens of the Local Government Area. With the foregoing it is clear that the 2nd is a proper and necessary party who has locus standi to sue and be sued in this matter.
I therefore hold that the 2nd Respondent has locus standi.

Having determined that the 2nd Respondent has locus Standi, I will now go ahead and determine the other issues.

ISSUE 1
The learned counsel to the Appellant submitted that the Appellant had proved his title by his pleadings found in page 4 of the Appellant’s brief. It reads thus:
The Claimant states that he became the owner of the farmland by a gift to him by Bulama Fatar, the then Bulama and the originator of the land, sometime in 1969 when he first settled in the area as a scholar on transit.
The Claimant states that the gift was witnessed by:
(a) Wakil Alhaji Sangar (the

representative of the Bulama)
(b) Modu Bulama (the son of the Bulama)
(c) Modu kori, Bulama Fatar friend

The Claimant states that he was also put to possession in the presence of the afore-mentioned witnesses.

The pleadings was further supported by the testimonies of Cw1 & Cw2. Counsel also states that the Appellant proved that his grantor is the originator of the said land. Counsel posited that there are many ways title to land can be acquired such as by grant, gift, outright purchase or lease. Either of these would be followed by handing over of the land in the presence of witnesses. This hand over in customary law seals the transaction. See Odibendi vs Okolie (2010) 13 NWLR t 1210 pg 45.

Counsel further stated that for the Appellant to succeed in this appeal, he must go further to satisfy the Court on the validity of Bulama Fatar, his grantor’s title Ogunleye vs Safolo (2010) AFWLR pt 523 pg 177. Counsel urged the Court to hold that the Appellant has proved his title to the disputed land.

ISSUE 3.
Counsel to the Appellant submitted that the parties have joined issues on the identity of the land in issue;

therefore, the 2nd Respondent must identify the land with certainty. Also counsel stated that the documents tendered, the pleadings and the testimonies in Court does not help the Court to reconcile and determine the certainty of the area and identity of the land in dispute. Counsel argued that oral testimony of the Dw2 cannot change the contents of a document. A. G. Bendel State vs UBA Ltd (1985) 4 NWLR pt 37 pg 547.

Counsel urged the Court to hold that the 2nd Respondent had not discharged its duty of identifying with certainty the identity of the land in dispute.

ISSUE 4.
The Appellant’s counsel referred the Court to the reliefs sought by the Respondents which I have recapped earlier. Counsel also referred the Court to paras
1. The counter-claimant avers that it acquired 531,900Sq.m of land which is the New Site Mogoromti Layout since 1981 and paid compensation to individual owners whose land were acquired. List of the Mogoromti Summary of Farmland Compensation signed by farm owners in 1981.
2. The counter-claim avers that it allotted the land to various individuals since 1981 and 1983. The original documents of the counter

Claimant were destroyed at the secretariat by the insurgence only the photocopy is available.
3. The counter claimant avers that it handed over the New Site Mogoromti layout to defunct Auno Local Government Area in 1983 before the said Local Government Was dissolved by the Military. The minute of handover is hereby pleaded.
4. The counter claimant avers that it allotted lands facing Maiduguri Kano Road, for commercial purpose and the allottees have since taken possession by building a filing Station, block industries and other small industries in the last 25 years.
5. The counter claimant avers that it left some of the land as reserves which was allotted to individuals in 2005.
6. The counter claimant avers that the allottees of the reserves have since taken possession by fencing their plots since 2005.
7. The counter claimant avers that more than half of the land in dispute were developed by the allottee in the last 25 years and the Defendant did not make any complaint until recently he took the advantage of the insurgence by claiming a small portion within the Mogoromti Layout and even building on it.

Counsel argued

that the relief sought by the Respondents does not flow from the pleadings and from the evidence elicited in Court. The reliefs in seeking that the 2nd Respondent is the rightful owner as it acquired the land from the lawful owners and allotted to individuals. Counsel argued that the Respondents did not lead evidence to prove his claims and prayers. They should lead evidence to establish pleaded facts. See Olowo vs Building Stock Ltd AFWLR pt 560 pg 1336. Counsel also argued that the pleading of the 2nd Respondent’s counter-claim is not relevant to the reliefs sought and the proper order by the Court is to dismiss the counter-claim for lack of evidence to sustain it. Oyeyemi vs Rewole L. G. (1993) 1 NWLR pt 270 pg 462 counsel finally urged the Court to hold that the counter-claim should fail as there is no evidence led that the trial Court can rely upon to grant the reliefs sought by the 2nd Respondent.

RESOLUTION
The Appellant claimed that he was given the land in dispute as a gift by Bulama Fatar, his grantor. He claimed that Wakil Alhaji Sangar, Modu Bulama and Modu Kori witnessed the gift and was put into possession.
A Plaintiff who seeks

declaration of title to land must prove his root of title to the land. Where he traces his title to a particular person, he must further prove how that person got his own title or came to have the title vested in him, including where necessary the family that originally owned the land. The burden of proof on the Plaintiff is not discharged even where the scales are evenly weighted between the parties. See Archibong vs Edak (2006) 7 NWLR pt 980 pg 485, Dike vs Okoloedo (1999) 10 NWLR pt 623 pg 359 Otanma vs Youdubagha (2006) 2 NWLR pt 964 pg 337.
In this appeal, the Appellant claimed his grantor was the originator of the land and left it at that. The law insists that the title of the grantor must be traced comprehensively and to a logical end. The Appellant did not prove or show how his grantor came to the land he gifted to him.

Furthermore, in customary transactions for land, what the vendor is required to do to seal the transaction is to put the grantee into possession with witnesses. The Appellant named his witnesses to the transaction but none of them was called to testify as to the veracity of the Appellant’s claim.
For a gift to be

valid under the Customary Law, the transaction must be witnessed by witnesses. See Atanda vs Hon Commissioner For Lands and Housing (2017) LPELR 42346 Adedeji vs Oloso (2007) SCNJ pg 411 Folarin Vs Durojaiye(1988) 1 NWLR pt 70 pg 351 Cole vs Folani (1956) 1 FSC pg 66. Akingbade vs Elemosho (1964) LPELR 25225.
The Appellant did not call the supposed witnesses and did not give reason for not calling them to testify as to their part as witnesses in the transaction. Folarin vs Durojaiye (1988) 1 NWLR pt 70 pg 357 Igbokwe vs Nlenchi (1996) 2 NWLR pt 429 Ogunbambi vs Abowab 13 WACA pg 222 Odusoga vs Ricketts (1997) LPELR 2256.
Having not called the witnesses who witnessed this gift and the handing over or putting the Appellant into possession, the Appellant was at a loss to prove the said gift. See Davies vs Rahmon-Davies (2018) LPELR 46557.

In a claim for declaration of title to land, a Plaintiff has the burden of proving his case upon his own evidence and cannot rely on the weakness of the Defendant’s case. Otanma vs Youdubagha (supra) Onisaodu vs Elewuju (2006) 13 NWLR pt 998 pg 517. Dike vs Okoloedo (1999) 10 NWLR pt 623 pg 359

Madubuonwu vs Nnalue (1999) 11 NWLR pt 628 pg 673. Eze vs Atasie(2000) 6 SC pt 1 pg 214, Elema vs Akenzua (2000) 6 SC pt III pg 26, Haruna vs Akpe-Ime (2000) 7SC pt II pg 24.

Now, where a party, in a claim of title to land pleads purchase or gift as his root of title, he either succeeds in proving the purchase or gift or he fails. If he fails to prove the title pleaded, he cannot turn around to rely on acts of possession or acts of ownership which are acts in the nature of things derivable from and rooted in the radical title pleaded. Okhuarobo vs Aigbe(2002) 9 NWLR pt 771 pg 29 Irawo vs Adedokun (2005) 1 NWLR pt 906 pg 199.

The Appellant claimed that the 2nd Respondent did not prove the identity of the land it is claiming. The Appellant was at a loss to identify with certainty the area of land he was claiming. The 2nd Respondent in its counter-claim sought for a declaration that it is the rightful owner of the land in the new site Mogoromti layout under Konduga Local Government Area of Borno State, 2nd Respondent pleaded in para 1-3 on pg 53 of Record of Appeal. In para 33 the 2nd Respondent claimed as follows:
“The land acquired in 1981 is about

531,900sq.m starting from the North is the farmland of Sheikh Idrisa Khadi from the East Mogoramti and Alh. Ibrahim Ambassador village/settlement form the South Maiduguri-Kano Road and form the West is the proposed Police College”.
In proof of the identity of the land claimed, the 2nd Respondent fielded Dw2, Bulama Gana who gave evidence in line with the pleading of the 2nd Respondent. This evidence was not challenged nor controverted during cross examination. There was nothing contradicting about the 2nd Respondent’s pleadings and evidence elicited from its witnesses.
The whole land as identified by the 2nd Respondent is a total of 531,900 sqm which is the area of the whole land. There is no contradiction whatsoever as to what was pleaded and the evidence adduced by Dw2. I believe the 2nd Respondent has established with certainty and accuracy the identity of the land it claims. This is a condition precedent sine qua non to the success of the 2nd Respondent’s counter-claim. Otanma vs Youdubagha (supra) Dada vs Dosunmu (2006) LPELR 909 Iseogbekun vs Adelakun (2012) LPELR 15516.

Appellant’s counsel also submitted that the

reliefs sought by the 2nd Respondent does not flow from the pleadings. The 2nd Respondent acquired land from the original owners and compensation was duly paid in terms of money and allocation of plots to the original owners. There was no complain from any of the original land owners. This land was acquired by the 2nd Respondent in 1981 a period of over 36 years before this suit was filed in the lower Court.
After this acquisition, compensation was paid. The 2nd Respondent went ahead and surveyed the land and thereafter allotted the plots to deserving allottees. The allottees are merely granted rights as holders for specified term, at the end of which the land reverts to the 2nd Respondent. See Oluwani vs Bwala (2011) AFWLR pt 565 pg 336.
Where the land reverts to the 2nd Respondent after the specified term of years, the 2nd Respondent is still the owner of the land. Therefore, the 2nd Respondent is entitled to the claim in its counter-claim once, it has been proved that Government has acquired land and paid compensation no one else has the reversionary right to the land except Government.
In Lagos State College of Education vs Kolawole (2004) 6

NWLR pt 870 pg 476, the Court decided that government has the Constitutional Right to compulsorily acquire property on payment of compensation by virtue of Section 44(1)(a) & (b) of the 1999 Constitution Elf Petroleum Nig Ltd vs Umah (2018) LPELR 43600.
It is trite that since the 2nd Respondent has reversionary rights to the land in issue it is still the owner of the land. The 2nd Respondent had interest to protect the land and the interest of the allottees. When the Appellant started trespassing on the land, the 47 allottees affected ran to the 2nd Respondent who allotted the plots to them. The 2nd Respondent was charged with the duty to safeguard, maintain of development and control of the Local Government Area.
It is clear that the 2nd Respondent who had reversionary rights to the land is still the owner of the land.

All the 4 issues articulated by the Appellant for determination have all been resolved against him. This appeal is unmeritorious. It is dismissed. The judgment of the lower Court is affirmed. Cost of N100,000.00 to the 1st Respondent against the Appellant.

JUMMAI HANNATU SANKEY, J.C.A.: I have read in draft the Judgment

just delivered by my learned brother, Ndukwe-Anyanwu, J.C.A.
I entirely agree with her reasoning and conclusions.
My learned lord has covered all the issues raised in this Appeal and has left nothing for me to add.
I also dismiss the appeal and abide by the consequential orders, inclusive of the order as to costs.

JAMES GAMBO ABUNDAGA, J.C.A.: I have been privileged to read the draft of the Judgment delivered by my learned brother, Uzo I. Ndukwe-Anyanwu, JCA. I am in agreement with the reasoning and conclusion reached in the Judgment that the appeal is unmeritorious. The Appellant’s root of title is grant. However, he failed to plead and prove the title of his grantor. On the other hand, the 2nd Respondent in whom land in rural area is vested going by the Land Use Act was able to establish its case through evidence especially that of DW2 whose evidence was not contradicted.

The Appellant’s contention that the 2nd Respondent has no locus standi to join in the suit and to counterclaim, is not tenable in view of its established reversionary interest in the land. It is for these reasons elaborately expatiated in the lead

Judgment that I too dismiss this appeal and affirm the Judgment of the lower Court. I abide his Lordship’s order as to costs.

Appearances:

K. GURUMYEN, ESQ. For Appellant(s)

WAZIRI, ESQ., with him, A. ADAMU, ESQ. For Respondent(s)