VINCENT AHMAN OCHEGBUDU v. BONIFACE AGBALA
(2014)LCN/6952(CA)
RATIO
WHETHER POSSESSION OF LAND MUST BE PROVED BY EVIDENCE
While it is the Law that title may be proved by acts of possession, it has to be such that it can be reasonably presumed that the possession may be evidence of ownership. Section 46 of the Evidence Act provides as follows:
“Acts of Possession and enjoyment of land may be evidence of ownership or of a right of occupancy not only of the particular piece or quantity of land, but also of other land so situated or connected there with by locality or similarity that what is true as to the one piece of land is likely to be true of the other piece of land.” See also Okechukwu Vs Okafor (1961) 1 All NLR 685, Idundun Vs. Okumagba.
This Section only creates a probability and not conclusive proof of ownership of land. This is because the evidence led as highlighted supra rendered the presumption of the ownership fluid and inconclusive, Thus improbable. Per MOHAMMED AMBI-USI DANJUMA, J.C.A.
LAND LAW AND EVIDENCE: PROOF OF TITLE TO LAND
Generally speaking, in a claim for declaration of title to land, the onus is on a Plaintiff to establish his claim upon the strength of his own case and not upon the weakness of the case of the Defendant. The Plaintiff must satisfy the trial court that upon the pleadings and evidence adduced by him, he was entitled to the declaration sought. Gbadamosi V. Dairo (2007) All FWLR (Pt.357) 812 (2007) 3 NWLR (Pt.1021) 282; Dada Vs. Dosunmu (2006) All FWLR (Pt.343) 1605 (2006) 18 NWLR (Pt.1010) 134 and a host of other cases. In the case at hand, the Plaintiff claimed title by pleading and relying on traditional history of inheritance and not by possession simpliciter. Where he fails to prove the basis for his claim, his action must fail.
In Odunukwe Vs. Ofomata supra Adekeye, JSC also has this to say:- “Where the Plaintiff and the Defendant anchor their case on traditional evidence in proving ownership of the land in dispute, the duty of the trial court in the circumstances is to weigh their evidence on an imaginary scale and determine which of the two is weightier. Mogaji V. Odofin (1978) 4 SC 91; Odofin V. Ayoola (1974) 11 SC 72; Ibikunle v. Lawani (2007) 3 NWLR Pt.1022; Okoko Vs. Dokolo (2006) All FWLR (Pt.336) 201.”
There are five distinct ways of proving title to land the proof of any of them will suffice, but it must not be upon evidence in departure from the pleadings.
In Odunukwe V. Ofomata (supra) Adekeye, JSC in her erudite judgment in concurrence, with clarity stated the Law at page 861 paragraph E of the judgment thus:- “Where a claimant for title to land who pleads traditional history fails to prove his root of title by that means, he cannot turn round to rely on acts of ownership and possession to prove his title to the land. As a matter of course there would be nothing on which to found acts of ownership in such a case the court is obliged to dismiss the claimant’s claim.” – Per MOHAMMED AMBI-USI DANJUMA, J.C.A.
