ALHAJI YINUSA AREMU LAAROKUN & ORS v. ALHAJI S. A. KADIR
(2019)LCN/13229(CA)
In The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
On Friday, the 10th day of May, 2019
CA/IL/38/2015
RATIO
LAND LAW: DECLARATION OF TITLE: PLAINTIFFS MUST ESTABLISH HIS CLAIM AND WIN ON STRENGTH OF OWN CASE
It is basic in that in claims relating to declaration of title, the plaintiff must establish his claim and in doing so rely on the strength of his claim and not on the weakness of the defense if any, except where the case of the defense supports his case. See Akande vs. Adisa (2012) 15 NWLR (pt. 1324) 538, Adigun vs. AG Oyo State (1987) 1 NWLR (pt. 53 ) 678, Ekun vs. Baruwa (1966) 3 ALL NLR 21, and Nwakidu vs. Okanu (2010) 3 NWLR (pt. 1181) 362 amongst so many other cases.PERHAMMA AKAWU BARKA, J.C.A.
LAND LAW: LAND MATTERS ARE TO BE DETERMINED BASED ON THE PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE
Land cases being civil in nature, are governed by the provisions of the Evidence Act, which stipulates that civil suits like the one before the Court, be determined upon the preponderance of evidence and balance of probability. Thus as held in the case of Jiaza vs. Bamgbose (1999) 7 NWLR (pt. 610) 182 per Ejiwunmi JSC, civil suits are won upon a preponderance of evidence.PER HAMMA AKAWU BARKA, J.C.A.
LAND LAW: DECLARATION OF TITLE: BURDEN OF PROOF
The plaintiff in such a case has the burden of establishing his claim upon relevant and credible evidence, evidence that is conclusive and that commands such probability that is in keeping with the surrounding circumstance of the case in hand. See also Mogaji vs. Odofin (1978) 4 SC 91, Onwuka vs. Ediala (1989) 1 NWLR (pt. 96) 182, Ehwrudje vs. Warri LGA (2016) ALL FWLR (pt. 834) 1 @ 24 Olokunlade vs. Samuel (2013) ALL FWLR (pt. 669) 1150 @ 1166.PER HAMMA AKAWU BARKA, J.C.A.
LAND LAW: 5 WAYS OF PROVING TITLE TO LAND
In the case of Mogaji vs. Cadbury (1985) LPELR 1889(SC), the Apex Court referred to its earlier decision in the case of Idundun vs. Okumagba (1976) 9 10 SC 246 250 where the Court listed the five ways upon which ownership may be proved. This includes;
i. By traditional History.
ii. by production of a document of title duly authenticated and executed.
iii. By acts of ownership extending over a sufficient length of time, numerous and positive enough as to warrant the inference of true ownership.
iv. By acts of long possession and enjoyment.
v. By proof of possession of connected or adjacent land in circumstances rendering it probable that the owner of such connected or adjacent land would in addition be the owner of the land in dispute. See also Nruamah vs Ebuzoeme (supra), and Ayanwale vs. Odusami (2011) 12 SC (pt. 111) 59 @ 76.PER HAMMA AKAWU BARKA, J.C.A.
LAND LAW: THE PLAINTIFF HAS THE DUTY TO SHOW THE EXACT LOCATION WHERE THE LAND IS SITUATED
It is trite that a burden lies on the plaintiff to show with definitive certainty the land forming the area of dispute. See Addah vs. Ubandawaki (2015) 7 NWLR (pt. 1458) 325 @ 348, Oke vs. Eke (1982) 12 SC 218, Iordye vs. Ihyambe (1993) 3 NWLR (pt. 280) 197. This trite position of the law however becomes unnecessary where the identity of the land claimed is not in dispute and or in doubt. It is glaring in the instant case that parties are at ad idem as to the identity of the land, being that also identified to the Court by the parties at the visit to the locus in quo. See Maigari vs. Mailafiya (2011) 1 NWLR (pt. 1228) 379 @ 394, Falomo vs. Onakanmi(2005) 11 NWLR (pt. 935) 126.PER HAMMA AKAWU BARKA, J.C.A.
LAND LAW: DISPUTE IN RELATION TO LANDS ARE RESOLVED IN FAVOUR OF THE PERSON WITH A BETTER TITLE
Where two parties claim to be in possession of the disputed land, the law ascribes possession to the party with the better title, and where titles are being relied upon by rival claimants, the party with a better title is entitled to succeed. This is built upon the legal presumption that the party having the better title to the piece of land is in lawful possession. Ojomo vs. Ibrahim (1999) 12 NWLR (pt. 631) 415, Osokoya vs. Onigemo (2018) ALL FWLR (pt. 936) 424 @ 468.PER HAMMA AKAWU BARKA, J.C.A.
LAND LAW: POSSESSION OF LAND IN LAW: MEANING
Possession in law arises from the right and entitlement to such possession by lawful title or ownership of the land in question. See Udeze vs. Chidebe (1990) 1 NWLR (pt. 125) 14, Osineye vs. Lawal (2018) ALL FWLR (pt. 936) 1456 @ 1475 per Garba JCA. In other words, possession without title can never ripen to title no matter how long it takes.PER HAMMA AKAWU BARKA, J.C.A.
FORFEITURE: WHO HAS THE RIGHT TO CLAIM FORFEITURE
Reasoning that the right to claim for forfeiture of a disputed land is available to a landlord without the necessity of joining the overlord in the proceedings, relied uponthe authority of Salami vs. Oke (1987) 4 NWLR (pt. 63) 1 @ 12 per Obaseki JSC, to the effect that:
Forfeiture is available whenever a tenant disputes the title of the Overlord or landlord or alienates without the landlords consent the whole or part of the land let out to him by the landlord under customary law,”
to conclude that the trial Court wrongly applied the principles governing forfeiture to the facts of the case, and thereby proceeded to grant the relief.
The lower Court can be said to be right with regards to the grant of a forfeiture against a tenant in law. For where a tenant turns round to set up a rival title to the title of his landlord commits gross misconduct, which attracts an order of forfeiture. See Elewa vs. Guffanti (Nig) Plc (2017) 2NWLR (pt. 1549) 233, Dokubo vs. Bob-Manuel (1967) SCNLR 196, Ojomu vs. Ajao (1983) 2SCNLR 156.PER HAMMA AKAWU BARKA, J.C.A.
JUSTICE
IBRAHIM SHATA BDLIYA Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
HAMMA AKAWU BARKA Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
BALKISU BELLO ALIYU Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
Between
1. ALHAJI YINUSA AREMU LAAROKUN
2. JIMOH OLOJA
3. OBA LAAROKUN
4. AMBALI AMINUAppellant(s)
AND
ALHAJI S. A. KADIRRespondent(s)
HAMMA AKAWU BARKA, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): The instant appeal is against the judgment of the Kwara State High Court sitting in its appellate jurisdiction in suit No. KWS/4A/2008, between Alhaji Yinusa Aremu Laarokun & 3 Ors against Alhaji S. A. Kadir, delivered on the 26th of September, 2011, whereupon the appellants appeal against the decision of the Upper Area Court II Ilorin was dismissed, while the cross-appeal succeeded.
In a nutshell the appellants herein were the defendants/counter-claimants before the Upper Area Court II Ilorin in Suit No. CVF/108/2001, whereof the plaintiffs now respondents by the amended statement of claim dated the 16th day of June, 2003 prayed for the following reliefs:
(1) A declaration that the plaintiffs family is the person entitled to customary rights of ownership invested by Emir of Ilorin over that parcel of land situate, lying and being at and/or along Weru River in Asa Local Government Area of Kwara Sate including all the settlement therein up to Nasiru village near Igbeti Town in Oyo state.
(2) A declaration that Larokun family (the defendants herein) have forfeited
1
their right as Customary tenant on the land in dispute on ground of misconduct by challenging the title of their overlord (the plaintiffs family).
(3) Recovery of possession or the position of the land allotted to the defendants family.
(4) Two Thousand Naira (N2,000) as damages for trespass on the said land.
(5) Perpetual injunction to restrain the defendants, their agents, their assignor from continuous further trespass on the said land.
The appellants as defendants before the trial Court filed a counterclaim dated the 10th of September, 2002, whereof the defendants counter-claimed as follows:-
i. That the land between Weru and Igbeti town belongs to Larokun family of Bakase in Asa Local Government in Kwara State.
ii. That the said Larokun family is entitled to the customary Right of occupancy over the said land.
iii. That the Ojuekun family has no right to detain the said land either as the owner or as tenant of Emir of Ilorin.
iv. That the plaintiffs, their privies, agents and legal representatives be restrained from interfering with the said land.
Whereas the claimants by the amended
2
statement of claim, claimed that the plaintiffs family (respondents herein) had been the beneficial customary owners vested by the Emir of Ilorin over all that parcel of land situate, lying and being from WERU River in the Asa Local Government Area of Kwara State and all the farm settlements up to Nasiru village near Igbeti Town of Oyo State; the defendants now appellants on the other handare of the view that the land between WERU and IGBETI town belongs to the Laarokun family of Bakase in Asa Local Government Area of Kwara State derived from being the first settlers thereof from time immemorial.
At the trial before the Upper Area Court, the plaintiff called 10 witnesses labeled as PW1 PW10, and tendered in evidence eleven exhibits, recorded as Exhibit P1 P11, while the defendants called one witness titled DW1, and tendered 5 exhibits, the other two intended exhibits having been rejected by the trial Court in its defense as well as in support of the counterclaim. The Court visited the locus in quo, and at the close of hearing, written addresses were ordered, filed and adopted. On the 30th day of November, 2006, the trial judge delivered
3
the vexed judgment, finding in favour of the plaintiff.
Irked and displeased with the trial Courts decision, the defendant/counter-claimant appealed the said decision to the Kwara State High Court (herein after called the lower Court) in its appellate jurisdiction, predicated on two grounds. The lower Court having taken arguments from parties in the appeal, delivered its judgment on the 26th September, 2011 dismissing the appeal, having conclusively held that:
In the final analysis, the appeal fails and same is hereby dismissed. The cross appeal succeeds. An order is hereby made for the forfeiture of the tenancy of the named defendants/applicants (cross respondents herein).”
Still dissatisfied with the decision of the lower Court, appellants on the 28th of December, 2011 filed a Notice of appeal to this Court predicated upon two grounds of appeal.
The extant notice of appeal is the amended notice of appeal filed on the 18th of November, 2016, now predicated upon four grounds of appeal.
The record of appeal with respect to this appeal was compiled and transmitted to this Court on the 14th day of April, 2015; and the
4
transmission having been made out of time, same was regularized on the 20th day of April, 2016.
The records having been dutifully and duly compiled and transmitted to this Court, parties proceeded to file in their respective briefs of argument.
The appellants amended brief dated the 28th of February, 2019 was filed on the 1st day of March, 2019. Upon receiving the respondents brief filed on the same 1st of March, 2019, appellant filed a reply brief on the 11th day of March, 2019.
The appeal having matured for hearing, parties on the 11th of March, 2019 being the scheduled hearing date, identified the processes filed, adopted the same as their arguments in urging the Court to grant their respective prayers.
In the appellants amended brief filed on the 1st day of March, 2019, and settled by Babakebe Lanre Sulyman, three issues were formulated from the four grounds of appeal as follows:-
i. Whether the respondent proved his entitlements and/or placed any material facts or documents before the trial Court to warrant grant of the reliefs in his favor. (Grounds 1 & 4)
ii Whether the respondent satisfied his
5
right to claim for forfeiture against the appellants in view of the peculiar circumstances, facts and documentary evidence placed before the trial Court. (Ground 2)
iii. Whether the trial Court did not have requisite power to expunge and/or not to attach credibility to some of the exhibits tendered
