MR AZEEZ SANNI & ANOR v. MALLAM AMINU AYINDE & ANOR
(2014)LCN/6905(CA)
RATIO
EXAMINING A CAUSE OF ACTION TO DETERMINE STATUTE OF LIMITATION
What then is a Cause of action and when does it accrue? The term “Cause of action” means “a group of operative facts giving rise to one or more bases for suing, a factual situation that entitles one person to obtain a remedy in court from another person”. See Black’s Law Dictionary 9th Edition, page 251. This term has also been judicially defined as denoting every fact which it would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove if traversed, to support his right to the court’s judgment. See Fadare vs. Attorney General of Oyo State (1982) 4 SC 1; Adimora vs. Ajufo (1988) 1 NWLR (Pt. 80) 1; Thomas vs. Olufosoye (1986) 1 NWLR (Pt. 18) 689. The cause of action is said to have accrued and time begins to run for the purpose of the limitation law when a person who can sue and another person who can be sued are in existence and all the material facts to be proved to enable the plaintiff to succeed have happened. see Jallco Ltd vs. Owoniboys Technical Service Ltd (1995) 4 NWLR (Pt. 391) 534.
To determine whether an action has become statute barred therefore what the court confines itself to is the averments in the process filed by the plaintiff in the action wherein the claim of the plaintiff and the facts giving rise to the rights claimed have been stated which in this case the statement of claim. See UBN vs. Umeoduagu (2004) 13 NWLR (Pt. 890) 352. The court will then consider the date when the cause of action had accrued, the date the action was commenced as indicated on the originating process (es) as well as the date limited for commencement of the action by the relevant limitation law. See Ajayi vs. Adebiyi (2012) All FWLR (Pt. 634) 1. Per ISAIAH OLUFEMI AKEJU, J.C.A
LAND: WHETHER CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY IS CONCLUSIVE PROOF OF TITLE TO LAND
A certificate of occupancy is not a conclusive proof of title to the land to which it relates. It is rather a rebuttable presumption of exclusive possession and it poses a presumption that as at the time it was issued there was no existing customary title that had not been revoked. Where therefore evidence shows that another person has a better title to the land before its issuance, the court can revoke the certificate of occupancy, see Haruna vs. Ojukwu (1991) 7 NWLR (Pt. 202) 207; Okpalugo vs. Adesoye (1996) 10 NWLR (Pt. 476) 77; Auta vs. Ibe (2003) 13 NWLR (Pt. 837) 247. Being prima facie evidence of exclusive possession, the acquisition of a certificate of a certificate of occupancy by a trespasser cannot remove the trespass.
In Omiyale vs. Macauley (2009) All FWLR (Pt.479) 399, the Supreme Court held as follows on pages 423 – 424 on what determines the validity of a certificate of occupancy; “For a certificate of occupancy under the Act to be therefore valid, there must not be in existence at the time the certificate was issued, a statutory customary owner of the land in issue or dispute, who was not diverted of his legal interest in the land prior to the grant. In other words, where a certificate of occupancy has been granted to one of two claimants who has not proved a better title (as the appellant), it must be deemed to be defective, to have been granted or issued erroneously and against the spirit of the Act and the holder (such as the Appellant) would have no legal basis for a valid claim over the land in dispute.
It must be stressed, and this is also settled that a certificate of occupancy does not confer legal right to possession where such possession, was procured following acts of trespass such as in this case leading to this appeal. In other words, possession cannot be properly and validly secured by an act of trespass or acquisition of a certificate of occupancy procured after this trespass. So held by this court in the case of Datogeam Dakat vs. Musa Dashe (1991) 12 SCNJ 90, per Ogwuegbu JSC.” –
I am of the view, based on the evidence well considered by the learned trial judge as well as the relevant judicial authorities that the decision of the learned trial judge on the appellants’ certificate of occupancy is well reasoned and well founded. Per ISAIAH OLUFEMI AKEJU, J.C.A
