SIMON JATTI v. JOHN DUWAL
(2014)LCN/7133(CA)
In The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
On Tuesday, the 15th day of April, 2014
CA/YL/46/2012
RATIO
DETERMINING WHETHER A PLAINTIFF HAS LOCUS STANDI TO INSTITUTE AN ACTION
It would appear from the welter of authorities on locus standi that a Plaintiff, to enable him invoke the judicial power of the court must show sufficient interest or threat of injury he would suffer and it is settled law that in the determination of whether a Plaintiff has locus standi to institute an action or not, the court is to look at the Writ of Summons and the Statement of Claim of the Plaintiff. It is the Statement of Claim that should exclusively donate locus standi.
See the following cases:-
– ALHAJI RAIMI YUSUF & OTHERS VS. ALHAJI AKINDIPE (2000) 5 SCNJ PAGE 128 RATIO 1.
– HIS PRE-EMINENCE BOLAJI VS. REV. BAMGBOSE (1986) 4 NWLR PART 37 PAGE 632.
– ADEFULU VS. OYESILE (SUPRA)
– OWODUNNI VS. REGISTERED TRUSTEES OF CELESTIAL CHURCH OF CHRIST (SUPRA).
– AGWARANGBO VS. UBN (2001) 4 NWLR PART 702 PAGE 1.
– GLOBAL TRANSPORT OCEANICO S.A & ANOTHER VS. FREE ENTERPRISE NIG. LTD (2001) 2 SCNJ PAGE 224 RATIO 19. Per JIMI OLUKAYODE BADA, J.C.A.
JUSTICES
JIMI OLUKAYODE BADA Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
JUMMAI HANNATU SANKEY Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
ADAMU JAURO Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
Between
SIMON JATTI Appellant(s)
AND
JOHN DUWAL Respondent(s)
JIMI OLUKAYODE BADA, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): This appeal emanated from the Judgment of Adamawa State High Court in its appellate jurisdiction in APPEAL NO: ADSM/10A/2008 -SIMON W. JATTI VS. JOHN DUWAL delivered on the 14th day of December, 2011, wherein the appeal of the Appellant was found to be unmeritorious and subsequently dismissed.
The Appellant, dissatisfied with the Judgment of the lower court obtained leave of the lower court to appeal on grounds of mixed law and facts. He appealed on two grounds vide the Notice of Appeal dated and filed on 12th March, 2012.
The learned Counsel for the Appellant formulated two issues for the determination of the appeal. The issues are reproduced as follows:-
“1. Whether the High Court was justified in holding that the Plaintiff/Appellant had locus standi to institute the action? (Distilled from ground 1).
2. Whether the dismissal of the appeal of the Appellant by the High Court (in effect, affirming the Judgment of the Upper Area Court which conferred title to the whole land on the Plaintiff) was justified when the Plaintiff failed to prove his title to the land? (Distilled from ground 2)”.
The learned Counsel for the Respondent in his own case formulated a lone issue for the determination of the appeal. The issue is reproduced as follows:-
“Whether from the claim and the preponderance of evidence adduced at the trial court, the lower court was right in dismissing the appeal before it and affirming the decision of the Upper Area Court”.
At the hearing, learned Counsel for the Appellant referred to the Appellant’s Brief of Argument which was filed on 14/5/2013 but deemed properly filed and served on 8/10/2013.
He adopted the said Appellant’s Brief of Argument as his argument in urging that the appeal be allowed.
The learned Counsel for the Respondent also referred to the Respondent’s Brief of Argument filed on 20/11/2013 but was deemed as properly filed and served on 26/2/2014. He adopted the said Brief as his argument in urging that the appeal be dismissed.
I have carefully examined the issues formulated for determination of the appeal on behalf of the parties in this appeal and it is my view that the issues formulated on behalf of the Appellant are apt and relevant for the determination of this appeal. I will therefore rely on it.
ISSUES 1 AND 2 (TAKEN TOGETHER)
“Whether the High Court was justified in holding that the Plaintiff/Appellant had locus standi to institute the action.
“Whether the dismissal of the appeal of the Appellant by the High Court (in effect, affirming the Judgment of the Upper Area Court which conferred title to the whole land on the Plaintiff) was justified when the Plaintiff failed to prove his title to the land”.
The learned Counsel for the Appellant referred to the claim of the Plaintiff/Respondent which is reproduced as follows:-
“I am complaining against Simon Jatti. He went into my farmland and started farming on it. My grandfather by name Ndekiya was the first person who started farming on the land after clearing and cutting the trees. After his demise, my father by name Duwal inherited the land. Up to now my father is alive but he is too old to attend to court………..”
(See page 3 lines 12-17 of the record of appeal).
Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the Plaintiff/Respondent sued in his own name, his personal capacity and claimed the land as his own while at the same time stating that the land belongs to his father who was alive when the suit was instituted.
It was further submitted on behalf of the Appellant that old age of a person’s father does not confer locus standi on a son to enable the son sue in his own name and in his personal capacity to claim ownership of his father’s property when the father is alive without alleging gift from the father or purchase thereof from him.
He referred to:- SECTION 26(1) (A) & (B) OF THE AREA COURTS LAW CAP 11, LAWS OF ADAMAWA STATE 1997. Which he said does not avail the Respondent.
He urged that issue 1 be resolved in favour of the Appellant.
On the second issue, learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that in a claim for title to land, the Plaintiff is bound to prove his title by any of the five recognized ways of proving title to land. He relied on the case of:- LAWANI ALLI VS. ALLESINLOYE (2000) 4 SCNJ PAGE 264 RATIO 3.
It was submitted further that except where the root of title of the Plaintiff is admitted, the Plaintiff is bound to prove his root of title and trace the devolution of his title from the root to himself.
The consequence of failure to prove his root of title and devolution of title from his root to himself is that his claim must be dismissed.
He referred to the following cases:-
– OKORIE ECHI VS. JOSEPH NNAMANI & OTHER (2000) 5 SCNJ PAGE 155, RATIOS 2 AND 5.
– MOSES DIKE VS. FRANCIS OKOLOEDO (1999) 7 SCNJ PAGE 248 RATIOS 1-7.
– PRINCE NGENE VS. CHIKE IGBO (2000) 2 SCNJ PAGE 136 RATIOS 4-6.
The learned Counsel for the Appellant contended that the Plaintiff did not state how the land of his father suddenly became his own whether by gift, purchase or any other means.
He submitted that since the Defendant did not admit the claim of the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff was bound to prove his root of title and the devolution of the land to himself by evidence.
He finally submitted that having failed to prove his root of title and devolution of the land to himself, the court below erred in law in dismissing the appeal of the Defendant/Appellant. He urged that issue 2 be resolved in favour of the Appellant.
In his response, the learned Counsel for the Respondent submitted that the Respondent has the locus standi to institute the action against the Appellant at the trial court and that the lower court was right in its decision. He relied on the case of:- AJAGUNGBADE VS. ADEYEMI II (2002) 9 WRN PAGE 92.
He also referred to the Respondent’s claim on page 5 of the record of appeal and submitted that the Respondent’s father having inherited the land from his grandfather and his father is too old to come to court but that since he has his father’s permission he has every justification to institute the action.
On the second issue for determination, learned Counsel for the Respondent submitted that the Respondent has proved better title to the land in dispute and that the lower court was right in dismissing the appeal before it and affirming the Judgment of the Upper Area Court. He relied on: UDENZE VS. NWOSU & OTHERS (2008) 154 LRCN PAGE 110 AT 138.
It was also submitted that the Respondent’s claim was not denied by the Appellant at the trial. And the Appellant did not file a counter claim for the land or any portion of it at the trial. He went further that the Respondent called 4 witnesses who gave evidence at the trial that the land belong to the Respondent’s grandfather Ndekiya and after the death of Ndekiya, Duwal, the Respondent’s father inherited the land.
Learned Counsel submitted that the evidence adduced by the Respondent’s witnesses were not successfully challenged, contradicted or discredited. He relied on the case of:- CHABASAYA VS. ANWASI (2010) 6 SCM PAGE 30 RATIO 1 AT PAGE 32.
He finally urged this court to affirm the Judgment of the lower court delivered on 14/12/2011.
The question of what gives a Plaintiff the standing to sue or locus standi has been the subject of a number of judicial decisions. See:-
– MOMOH VS. OLOTU (1970) 1 ALL NLR PAGE 117.
– ADESANYA VS. THE PRESIDENT (1981) 2 NCLR PAGE 358 OR (1981) 5 SC PAGE 112.
– ADEFULU VS. OYESILE (1989) 5 NWLR PART 122 PAGE 377.
– OWODUNNI VS. REGISTERED TRUSTEES OF CCC (2000) 10 NWLR PART 675 PAGE 315.
It would appear from the welter of authorities on locus standi that a Plaintiff, to enable him invoke the judicial power of the court must show sufficient interest or threat of injury he would suffer and it is settled law that in the determination of whether a Plaintiff has locus standi to institute an action or not, the court is to look at the Writ of Summons and the Statement of Claim of the Plaintiff. It is the Statement of Claim that should exclusively donate locus standi.
See the following cases:-
– ALHAJI RAIMI YUSUF & OTHERS VS. ALHAJI AKINDIPE (2000) 5 SCNJ PAGE 128 RATIO 1.
– HIS PRE-EMINENCE BOLAJI VS. REV. BAMGBOSE (1986) 4 NWLR PART 37 PAGE 632.
– ADEFULU VS. OYESILE (SUPRA)
– OWODUNNI VS. REGISTERED TRUSTEES OF CELESTIAL CHURCH OF CHRIST (SUPRA).
– AGWARANGBO VS. UBN (2001) 4 NWLR PART 702 PAGE 1.
– GLOBAL TRANSPORT OCEANICO S.A & ANOTHER VS. FREE ENTERPRISE NIG. LTD (2001) 2 SCNJ PAGE 224 RATIO 19.
The contention of learned Counsel for the Appellant is that the Plaintiff sued in his name, his personal capacity and claimed the land as his own.
But on page 5 of the record of appeal, the Respondent in his claim stated that:-
“I got my father’s mandate and permission to institute the action because my father is too old and would not be able to come personally……….”
According to the Respondent’s claim on pages 3-5 of the Record of Appeal, the fact that the Respondent’s father inherited the land from his grandfather and his father is too old to come to court but has his father’s permission to institute the action, therefore, he has locus standi to institute the action.
The Respondent who is apparently the person to inherit the land has an interest in the land and has every justification to approach the court to protect the land, notwithstanding that his father was still alive, but too old to come to court.
In SAPO & ANOTHER VS. SUNMONU (2010)6 SCM PAGES 204 it was held among others by the Supreme Court that:-
“The law is settled that a head of a family, can take action to protect family property, even without the prior authority of other members of the family. So also, any member of a family, may take step, to protect or defend family property or his own interest in it.”
On issue 2, the contention of learned Counsel for the Appellant is that in a claim for title to land, the Plaintiff is bound to prove his title by any of the five recognized ways of proving title to land. And that the Respondent having failed to prove his root of title that the lower court erred in law in dismissing the appeal of the Appellant.
It must not be forgotten, that this case emanated from Area Court II Mubi. And where a case has started from Area Court or Customary Court where there is no pleadings to contend with, it is settled that an Appellate court has to discern the issue in dispute between the parties by examining the claim, the evidence of the parties at the trial in order to get to the root of the controversy between the parties.
See the following cases:-
– UDENZE VS. NWOSU & OTHERS (SUPRA) PAGE 110 AT 138.
– CHUKWUNTA VS. CHUKWU & OTHERS 14 WACA PAGE 341.
– NKWO & OTHERS VS. UCHENDU & ANOTHER (1996) 3 NWLR PART 434 PAGE 1.
The Respondent on page 3 of the Record of Appeal made his claim out as follows:-
“………………my grandfather by name Ndekiya was the first person who started farming on the land after clearing and cutting the trees. After his demise, my father by name Duwal inherited the land…………………………………………………..”
The claim of the Respondent was not denied by the Appellant and he did not counter-claim for the land or any portion of it.
On page 4 of the Record of Appeal, the Defendant’s Statement of Defence reads thus:-
“The issue of the farm complaint (sic) by John, in fact I don’t know John except today. He did not ever talk to me about the farm.
In fact I inherited the land from my father and my father is alive and I have relatives, the proper person for him to sue is my father and since his father is alive and my father is alive, his father would have been the proper person to institute the action against my father since both of them are alive.”
A careful examination of part of the claim of the Respondent set out earlier in this Judgment vis-a-vis the Statement of Defence of the Appellant would reveal that the defence of the Appellant did not deny the Respondent’s claim.
As I said earlier in this Judgment the Appellant did not counter claim for the land in dispute. All he said was that he inherited the land from his father. He called 5 witnesses who testified on his side.
The Respondent on the other hand called 4 witnesses PW1 was aged 71 years PW3 was aged 80 years and PW4 was aged 65 years. These witnesses testified that they were born and brought up in that area since their childhood. And that Ndekiya the grandfather of the Respondent was the person they knew as the owner of the land in dispute.
Consequent upon the foregoing, it is my view that based upon the claim of the Respondent, the Statement of Defence of the Appellant and the evidence adduced at the trial court, the Respondent has proved his case and the lower court was right when it dismissed the appeal before it and affirmed the Judgment of the Upper Area Court.
Issues 1 and 2 are hereby resolved in favour of the Respondent and against the Appellant.
In the result, it is my view that this appeal lacks merit and it is hereby dismissed.
There shall be costs assessed at N50,000.00 in favour of the Respondent and against the Appellant.
JUMMAI HANNATU SANKEY, J.C.A.: I had the advantage to read in draft the Judgment just delivered by my learned brother, Bada, JCA.
I agree with the reasons advanced therein to arrive at the conclusion that the Appeal lacks merit and should be dismissed.
My learned brother ‘covered the field’. I have nothing useful to add. Thus, I join in dismissing the Appeal and abide by the consequential order made on costs.
ADAMU JAURO, J.C.A.: I have had the advantage of reading in advance the lead judgment just delivered by my learned brother, JIMI OLUKAYODE BADA, JCA. I am in complete agreement with the reasoning articulated in the said judgment, and the conclusion arrived thereat.
I adopt the said judgment as mine and join my brother in dismissing the appeal as lacking in merit.
I abide by the consequential orders made, including order as to costs.
Appearances
Aminu Murtala Aminu with him is K.P. EzraFor Appellant
AND
Mr. Joseph William holding the brief of I.S. AdamuFor Respondent
