ABDULKADIR & ANOR v. MOHAMMED (2020)

ABDULKADIR & ANOR v. MOHAMMED

(2020)LCN/14922(CA)

In The Court Of Appeal

(YOLA JUDICIAL DIVISION)

On Friday, December 18, 2020

CA/YL/75/2019

RATIO

INTERPRETATION: DUTY WHERE A STATUTE PROVIDES FOR A METHOD OF DOING A PARTICULAR THING

Where a statute provides for a method of doing a particular thing, that thing might not be done in any other way. See the case of Vascumi Investment (Nig.) Ltd & Ors vs Ladan (2016) LPELR-40516 (CA), where it was held thus:-
“The law is quite settled that where an enactment has specified a particular procedure or method for doing anything, it is not permissible for party or a person to deviate from the method or procedure so specified. This point has been made by this Court and the Supreme Court in several cases. PER BAYERO, J.C.A.

APPEAL: ATTITUDE OF THE APPELLATE COURTS TO JUDGES RAISING ISSUES SUO MOTU

In the case of EFCC vs. Chidolue (2019) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1657) at 451 at 459 Paras. A-C, it was held thus:
“A Judge has the right in our adjectival law to use particular words or phrases, which, in his opinion, are germane to his evaluation of the facts of the case. In so far as he does that in line with the evidence before him, it will be unfair for counsel to castigate him or accuse him of raising issue suo motu. A Judge can only be accused of raising issue suo motu if the issue was never raised by any of the parties in the litigation. A Judge cannot be accused of raising issue suo motu if the issue was raised by both parties or by any of the parties in the proceedings. [Enekwe v. I.M.B. (Nig.) Ltd. (2006) 19 NWLR (Pt. 1013) 146 referred to.] (P. 458, Paras. F-H).”
Also in the case of Ikenta Best (Nig) Ltd vs. A.G Rivers State (2008) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1084) 622 Ratio 9, the Supreme Court held that:
“A Court can only be accused of raising an issue or a matter of fact suo motu if the issue or matter or fact did not exist in the litigation. A Court cannot be accused of raising an issue or a matter of facts motu if the issue or matter in fact exists in the litigation. A Judge, by the nature of his adjudicatory functions, can draw inferences from stated facts in a case and by such inferences the Judge can arrive at conclusions. It will be wrong to say that inferences legitimately drawn from facts in the case are introduced suo motu.” PER BAYERO, J.C.A.

Before Our Lordships:

Chidi Nwaoma Uwa Justice of the Court of Appeal

James Shehu Abiriyi Justice of the Court of Appeal

Abdullahi Mahmud Bayero Justice of the Court of Appeal

Between

1. MAHMOOD ABDULKADIR 2. JULIUS JERRISON APPELANT(S)

And

ALHAJI KABIRU MOHAMMED RESPONDENT(S)

ABDULLAHI MAHMUD BAYERO, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): By a writ of summons dated 20th May, 2014 and filed on 23rd May, 2014, the Respondent as Plaintiff before the trial Court instituted the Suit No. ADSY/63/2014 against the Appellants as defendants claiming for:-
a) A Declaration that the Plaintiff is the lawful owner of a piece of land measuring about 2,400 square meters lying and situate at plot No. 17 ‘A’ Road based on MISC 9 Dougirei, Yola-Jimeta Sheet, covered by C of O No. GS/9/156.
b) Perpetual injunction restraining the Defendants by themselves, their agents, servants, privies and any person(s) deriving title through them from committing further trespass on the Plaintiff’s land lying, being and situate at plot No. 17 ‘A’ Road based on MISC 9 Dougirei, Yola-Jimeta sheet covered by C of O No. GS/9156
c) N2,000,000.00 as damages for trespass
d) Further and better relief.

Issues were joined by the parties. The Plaintiff/Respondent called two witnesses and tendered six (6) Exhibits, while the Appellants/Defendants called five (5) witnesses and tendered fifty nine (59) Exhibits. The trial

Court delivered Judgment in favour of the Respondent as the lawful owner of the disputed land. Dissatisfied, the Appellants filed their Notice of Appeal with 17 grounds on 4/01/2019. The record of Appeal was compiled and transmitted to this Court on 18/04/2019 but deemed as properly compiled and transmitted on 7/10/2019. The Appellant’s Brief was filed on 14/10/2019, amended on 26/2/2020 and deemed on 10/9/2020. Reply Brief was filed on 17/09/2020 but deemed on 11/11/2020.

The Respondent’s Brief was filed on 6/02/2020 and deemed on 10/09/2020. The amended Respondent’s Brief was filed on 6/10/2020 but deemed on 11/11/2020. In the Appellants’ amended Brief five issues are formulated for determination thus:-
A. “Whether Exhibit C (Notice of Reversion of Revocation) an unregistered instrument is admissible in law and can form the basis of reverting a lawfully revoked statutory right of occupancy. (Distilled from grounds 7 and 9).”
B. “Whether from the totality of evidence before the trial Court, the Respondent was able to establish title over the disputed land to warrant the trial Court making a

declaration of title in his favour. (Distilled from grounds 1, 5, 6, 8, 10, 14, 15, 16 and 17).”
C. “Whether the failure of the learned trial Judge to make pronouncement on the legality or otherwise of Exhibit E (Police Investigation Report) which formed the basis of the reversion of the Respondent’s Certificate of Occupancy has not impeached the Appellants’ right to fair hearing. (Distilled from ground 11).”
D. “Whether from the totality of evidence before the trial Court, the identity of the disputed land was ever in doubt. (Distilled from grounds 2 and 3).”
E. “Whether it was right for the learned trial Judge to suo motu raise the issue of validity of the revocation in his judgment without inviting the parties to address him on the issue. (Distilled from grounds 4 and 12).”

On issue one, it was submitted that it is trite that an instrument affecting land which is registrable but has not been registered cannot be pleaded nor tendered or produced in evidence; if it is pleaded and inadvertently received in evidence same would be ignored and expunged. That the fact that no objection

was taken to its admissibility does not save it since its exclusion is enjoined by law – Sections 2, 3(1) (2) and 6 of the Land Registration Law, Cap. 75, Laws of Adamawa State, 1997.

That Exhibit C (Notice of Reversion of Revocation) falls within the category of documents classified as instruments in Section 2 of the Land Registration Law, Cap. 75, Laws of Adamawa State, 1997. According to Counsel, Exhibit C is an instrument through which title over the disputed land was restored to the Respondent and should have been registered – Akinduro vs. Alaya (2007) AFWLR (Pt. 381) 1653 at 1666 Paras. G-H. That the inference that can be drawn from trial Judge’s pronouncement that Exhibit C is not a registrable instrument, within the scope of the Land Registration Law is that there is no instrument re-conferring title over the disputed land on the Respondent. That the penalty for the non-registration of Exhibit C is covered by Section 15 of the Land Registration Law, Cap. 75, Laws of Adamawa State, 1997 to the effect that it cannot be pleaded or tendered in evidence -Atanda vs. C.L.H, Kwara State (2017) All FWLR (Pt. 902) 929 at 950 Paras. A-G.<br< p=”” style=”box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;”>

</br<>

According to Counsel, since the Respondent’s principal claim of declaration of title is predicated on Exhibit C that is void by virtue of non-registration, it connotes therefore that the Respondent’s claim must fail. That Exhibit K (Notice of Revocation) was duly registered and that the evidence of registration of Exhibit K is captured at the back page of the exhibit – Page 385 of the printed record and Oyelakin v. Arowolo (Supra) 294 Para. F. He urged this Court to resolve the first issue in favour of the Appellants.

On issue two, it was submitted that by virtue of Exhibit K (notice of revocation) duly signed, the Respondent’s title, if any, has been legally extinguished – Section 45(1) and (2) of the Land Use Act, 1978.

That even if the Respondent’s title over the disputed land has not been revoked, the Respondent would still have no legal title over the disputed land since there was an existing interest held by a segment of the Federal Government, Federal Ministry of Works and Housing over the same land – Kari vs. Ganaram (1997) 2 NWLR (Pt. 488) 380.

That Exhibit K acknowledges the existence of grant GSG/426 and

that the non-production of grant GSG/426 at the hearing of this case was thoroughly explained in the Appellants’ statement of defence. That the genuineness and correctness of Exhibit K, a duly registered instrument signed by the Commissioner on behalf of the Governor was never put to test before the trial Court. According to Counsel, the presumption is that Exhibit K was legally issued and same remains valid.

That the Respondent relied heavily on the certificate of occupancy (Exhibit B) which the Respondent claimed was issued to him on 21st day of June, 2011 as his document of title. Counsel further submitted that a certificate of statutory right of occupancy issued under the Land Use Act is not conclusive evidence of any right, interest or valid title to land in favour of the grantee. That it is, at best, only a prima facie evidence of such right, interest or title without more and may in appropriate cases be effectively challenged and rendered invalid, null and void.

That the certificate of occupancy purportedly granted to the Respondent over the land in dispute while there is another valid grant/interest which is earlier in time granted to

Federal Ministry of Lands, Housing and Urban Development is merely illusory, invalid and not having the effect claimed by the Respondent.

According to Counsel, the minutes of the Site Board Meeting (Exhibit G), the Survey Plan (Exhibit H), the Notice of Revocation (Exhibit K) and other exhibits tendered by the Appellants coupled with the houses and fence built on the piece of land allocated to the Federal Ministry of Lands, Housing and Urban Development is enough to defeat any legal interest the Respondent is purportedly exercising over the disputed land – Olukoya vs. Ashiru (2006) All FWLR (Pt. 322) 1479 at 1514, Paras G-H.

That Exhibits M, M1, M2, M7, M8, M9 and M6, dated 22nd March, 1991, 15th March, 1991, 10th April, 1987, 4th September, 1989, 21st March, 1991 and 4th Sept, 1989 respectively show the existence of an ongoing building project on part of the land granted to Federal Ministry of Lands, Housing and Urban Development which the disputed land forms part of – Pages 396, 397, 398, 404-407.

That the evidence led before the trial Court showed that the Federal Ministry of Lands, Housing and Urban Development is in possession of the

connected lands to the land in dispute, as the guest houses and other projects for which the land was allocated to the Federal Government still stand on the land till date. That from the approved survey plan (Exhibit H), which is an equivalent of a grant, issued by the Ministry of Land and Survey in June, 1983, the size of Plot 17 is 2.00 hectares, and the size of the land granted to the Respondent as contained in Exhibit B (Respondent’s certificate of occupancy) is 2400 square meters.

That since the oral and documentary evidence before the trial Court pointed directly that the Appellants own the disputed land, the Respondent’s case ought to have been dismissed by the trial Court – Goloto vs. R.T.D.L.M (2012) All FWLR (Pt. 647) 726 at 744, Paras. C – D.

According to Counsel, from the evidence before the trial Court, the Respondent was never in possession of the disputed land prior to the commencement of this suit; and that the award of N1,000,000.00 as compensation for trespass is very excessive. According to Counsel, Exhibits J4 and J5, clearly stated that during the site board meeting held in 1980, the disputed land was allocated

to Federal Ministry of Works and Housing.

On issue three, it was submitted that a Court of law has a duty to consider and resolve all issues submitted to it for adjudication, that failure to do that will amount to a denial of fair hearing -Garba v. Mohammed (2017) ALL FWLR (Pt. 867) 420 at 490-491 Paras. G-B. That the trial Judge erred in law when he failed to consider or make pronouncement on issue C formulated in the Appellants’ final written address which borders on the legality or otherwise of the Police Investigation Report (Exhibit E) as the basis for the reversion of the lawfully revoked Respondent’s Certificate of Occupancy (Exhibit B).

That Exhibit E shows that the police final recommendation in the said exhibit has nothing to do with reversion of the revocation. Rather, the police recommended that the matter being purely civil in nature, parties should approach the Court for amicable settlement of their dispute.

That Exhibit E shows that there was a site board meeting through which the disputed land was allocated to the Federal Ministry of Works and Housing for the building of guest house. According to Counsel, after the

allocation to the Federal Ministry, the land was later subdivided by the Ministry of Land and Survey into various plots Nos. 11A, 13a, 15A and 17A; and the Respondent got plot 17A. Counsel further submitted that the above facts are admission against interest – Nigeria Bar Association v. Dr. Yakubu Fobur (2006) All FWLR (Pt. 333) 1739 at 1750, Paras. D-F.

As to issue four, Counsel submitted that the Respondent conceded at Paragraph 4.47 of the Respondent’s written address before the trial Court that the identity of the land in dispute was never in contention – Page 225 of the Printed record.

That the land in dispute was referred to as Plot No. 30 in Exhibit L5, which is the proposed site plan – Page 394 of the Printed record, while Exhibit H, the approved survey plan refers to the land which the disputed land forms part of as Plot 17, measuring 2.00 hectares; Exhibits A and B tendered by the Respondent refers to the disputed land as Plot No. 17A, while Exhibit E, the Police Investigation Report, specifically paragraphs I and J (Page 360 of the printed record) also tendered by the Respondent refers to the disputed land as Plot No. 17.<br< p=”” style=”box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;”>

</br<>

According to Counsel, the evidence before the trial Court, specifically Paragraph 12 of the Appellants’ witness statement on oath and Paragraph 11 of DW2 and DW4 witnesses’ statements on oath (Pages 48, 56, 68-69 and 74 of the printed record) that part of Plot No. 17 as indicated in Exhibit H, allocated to the Federal Ministry of Works and Housing was subdivided into different plots by the Federal Ministry of Works and Housing during the monetization of Federal Government landed properties and sold to interested members of the public. That the monetized lands were further numbered 1, 2, 3 and so on by the Federal Ministry of Works and Housing before the sale to the public as indicated in Exhibits M4, M5, M10 and Paragraph 25 of DW5’s statement on oath – Pages 400 -403 and 408 – 419 of the Printed record.

According to Counsel, the Appellants purchased Plots No. 2 and 4 respectively from the companies that successfully bid for the plots and were allocated same by the Federal Ministry of Environment and Urban Development. That Exhibits M4 and M5 are the offers of statutory right of occupancy issued in respect of the two Plots, and

the Plot purchased by the 1st Appellant is Plot No. 2 Abdullahi Bashir Road, Dougirei Drive, Jimeta Yola, Adamawa State.

That where the identity of a land is known to both parties as in the instant case, the fact that the party ascribed different names or Plot numbers to the land is inconsequential – Nwokorobia vs. Nwogu (2009) ALL FWLR (Pt.476) 1868 at 1895-1896, Paras. B-A and Faleye v. Dada (2016) All FWLR (Pt. 845) 150 at 174 Para. F.

That the visit to the locus in quo for ascertaining whether the parties refer to the same subject matter, and once this is ascertained, the issue of the identity of the land will be laid to rest; and that the parties are ad idem as to the land in dispute before the trial Court as to its identity – Dada v. Faleye (2007) All FWLR (Pt. 349) 1134 at 1151 Para. G, Hambe vs. Hueze (2001) F.W.L.R. (Pt. 42) 1 at 10 – 15 Paras. D-H, B-D and Egbuchu vs. C.M.B. Plc (2016) All FWLR (Pt. 832) 1705 at 1717 Paras. E-G.

On issue five, it was submitted that the issue the trial Judge decided at Page 341 of the printed records that the revocation was not done in conformity with Sections 28, 33 and 44 of the Land Use Act and

that the Respondent is not only entitled to the notice of the proposed revocation, he is also entitled to be heard on the proposed revocation of his title was raised suo motu in the judgment, without affording the parties an opportunity to address the Court on it – Hambe vs. Hueze (2001) F.W.L.R. (Pt. 42) 1 at 10 – 15 Paras. D-H, B-D and Egbuchu vs. C.M.B. Plc (2016) All FWLR (Pt. 832) 1705 at 1717 Paras. E-G. According to Counsel, the Respondent as shown at Page 256 of the Printed record admitted under cross-examination that his Right of Occupancy was revoked by the Government. He urged the Court to allow the Appeal, set aside the Judgment of the lower Court and declare title to the land to the Appellants.

In the amended Respondent’s Brief, six (6) issues are formulated for determination thus:-
(i) Whether having regard to the evidence before the Court, the Respondent as Plaintiff would be said to have proved his case as required by the law to warrant the Court enter judgment in his favour. (Distilled from Grounds 1, 8, 10, 14, 15 and 16).
(ii) Whether having regard to the Evidence before the Court, particularly EXHIBITS

“A”, “B”, “C”, “G2” and “H”, it would be said that there was an existing interest in the land in dispute prior to the allocation of same to the Respondent/Plaintiff, to warrant the issuance of EXHIBIT K. (Distilled Grounds 5 and 6).
(iii) Whether by virtue of Section 2, 6 and 7 and 13 of the Land Registration Law, Cap. 75 Laws of Adamawa State, 1997, Exhibit C is a registrable instrument and its non-registration can render it inadmissible in Law. (Distilled from Grounds 7).
(iv) Whether having regard to the evidence before the Court, it would be said that the Respondent case before the lower Court pertains the identity of the disputed land. Distilled from Grounds 2 and 3).
(v) Whether having regard to the Appellants issue two before the lower Court at page 180 to 191 of the printed record and the Respondent respond at 228- 229 paragraphs 4.60-4.65 thereof, the trial Court would be said to have raised the issue of the validity of revocation to warrant the invitation of the parties to address him on that. (Distilled from Grounds 4, 9, &12).
(vi). Whether the trial Court can be said

to have failed to pronounce on the legality of Exhibit E and same has occasioned a miscarriage of justice to the Appellants. (Ground 11).

On issue one, it was submitted that the Respondent as Plaintiff in proof of his case before the trial Court called two witnesses including himself as PW1 and tendered Exhibits A, B, C, D and E respectively. That Exhibit A is Right of Occupancy (R of O) No. GS/9156, Exhibit B is the Certificate of Occupancy No. GS/9156, Exhibit C, is a letter titled Re-Notice of revocation of certificate of occupancy No. GS/9156, Exhibit D is Planning permission and Exhibit E is Police Investigation Report.

That the Respondent as Plaintiff before the trial Court relied on the Exhibits A-E in proof of his case as one of the five ways of proving title to land – Alhaji Lasisi Salisu & Anor vs. Alhaji Abbas Mobolaji & Ors. (2016) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1535) 242 at 254 Ratio 14.

According to Counsel, PW1 in his evidence in Chief which was corroborated by PW2 in his evidence in chief at Pages 13-14 of the printed record informed the lower Court that the Federal Ministry of Land, Housing and Urban Development was not granted the land

in dispute – Pages 10-12 of the printed record.

That this evidence was not challenged or contradicted by the Appellants and that DW1 and DW3 admitted this under cross-examination. It was further submitted that DW1 stated under cross-examination that no file, Certificate of Occupancy or grant in favour of the Federal Ministry of Works, Housing and Urban Development was presented to him – Pages 269 to 270 of the Printed record.

According to Counsel, the law is trite that where the evidence of a witness is not inadmissible in law, contradicted and unchallenged as in this instance, a Court of law can act on it and accept it as a true version of the case it seeks to support – Iriri vs. Erhurhobara (1991) 2 NWLR (Pt. 173) 252 at 262 Paras. C-D. That the Appellants in a failed and fruitless voyage submitted in their final address before the lower Court, that they have explained the reason for the absence of the Certificate of Occupancy or the grant. According to Counsel, the law is trite, that Counsel’s address no matter how brilliant cannot substitute evidence – Hayatu Umar vs. State (2018) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1617) 72 at 78 Ratio 10.

On the averment of the Appellants/Defendants at Paragraph 41 of their statement of defence that all efforts to trace the file containing the grant of the land at the Ministry of lands and survey Adamawa State proved abortive, Counsel submitted that no evidence was led by any of the Appellants’ witnesses on that averment. That the law is trite that any averment in pleadings which is not supported by evidence goes to no issue -Akinbade vs. Babatunde (2018) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1618) Ratio 19.

Learned Counsel urged this Court to hold that the Appellants having failed to tender the grant or Certificate of Occupancy, which they continuously claimed to have been granted to the Federal Ministry of Works, Housing and Urban Development, must fail in their claim against the land in dispute. That DW1 in his evidence in chief informed the Court that the land in dispute was allocated to the Federal Ministry of Works in 1981, he came across the file containing the grant during his service and that the land is GSG/426; while under cross-examination, he informed the Court that no file bearing GSG/426 or Federal Ministry of Works was presented to him and that no grant or Certificate of

Occupancy was presented by Federal Ministry of Works to him during the course of investigation.

All these, Counsel further submitted, are material contradictions and the witness is not worthy of any credibility and honour by the Court – Ajiboye vs. FRN (2011) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1244) 468 Ratio 3. That the admission by the Appellants’ witnesses (DW 1, 2 and 3) that the Appellants/Defendants did not submit any grant or certificate of occupancy to either the Police or Adamawa State Ministry of lands and survey for investigation, has further strengthened the case of the Plaintiff/Respondent that the land in dispute was never granted to the Federal Ministry of Works, Housing and Urban Development – Salisu vs. Mobolaji (Supra) Ratio 16.

Counsel further submitted that DW1 admitted unequivocally under cross-examination that all correspondences to the Ministry of Land and Survey, Yola are addressed to the commissioner for lands who acknowledges receipt, stamped and send them to the relevant officer or department for action. That according to DW1 none of the correspondences were acknowledged and stamped received or sent to him to take any action. According to

Counsel, DW1 was not part of the team that visited the land in dispute and that there was no report submitted to him in respect of the said visit – Pages 269-271 of the Record.

Counsel urged the Court to discountenance Exhibits J J1, J6 and J7 as same were produced by DW1 without any authority to do so. According to Counsel, the investigation carried out by DW1 in favour of the Federal Ministry of Works, Housing and Urban Development was entirely in respect of a different land i.e. Plot No. 30 (Abdullahi Bashir Road) Dougirei, while the land allocated to the Respondent was Plot No. 17 A road, Dougirei. That the plan of the Respondent’s land is as shown at the back of his Certificate of Occupancy with an area of 2401.04 square meters. That the Respondent has never claimed before the Court on the basis of Exhibit H as his claim is anchored on Exhibit B and the Survey Plan thereof. As such Counsel submitted, Appellants swim and sink along with Exhibit H.

Counsel submitted that the makers of Exhibits J4 and J5 having not been called to testify, their status of being public documents notwithstanding, remain hearsay – Nyesom vs. Peterside (2016) 7

NWLR (Pt. 1512) 452 at 484 Ratio 40. That the Appellants have never been in possession of the land in dispute before their trespass, which resulted this suit; and that the defence of possession could not avail the Appellants at this point because the law is trite that where a party rely on documents to prove his title he would not turn around after failing on that ground to rely on possession.

On issue two, it was submitted that in the instant Appeal, there is no single document presented by the Appellants which show in clear terms where the land is situated or the measurement of land granted to the Federal Ministry of Works, Housing and Urban Development.

That in Paragraph B of Exhibit J, the Appellants referred to the land allocated to Federal Ministry of Works, as Plot No. 30 with the measurement of 1.8 hectares; and that by Exhibit H which the Appellants tendered in support of their claim in Exhibit J. That Counsel’s address no matter how brilliant will not substitute evidence. Counsel further submitted that while Exhibit B which is the certificate of occupancy in favour of the Respondent over the Land in dispute is dated 21/06/2011,

Exhibit K made reference to Certificate of Occupancy dated 01/07/2011.

Counsel further submitted that in the absence of certificate of occupancy or grant which the Appellants admitted as sine qua non to the establishment of any claim in relation to the land in dispute, the land in dispute would be said to have been allocated to the Federal Ministry of Works in 1980.

On issue three, it was submitted that the operative words in Exhibit C are reversion and restoration, that Section 2 of the Land Registration Law contemplates a grantor, conferring, transferring limiting, charging or extinguishing a right not reversion or restoration.

According to Counsel, Exhibit C is neither conferring, transferring, limiting, charging or extinguishing the right of the Respondent thereof, but rather restored his legal interest that was conferred by Exhibits A and B. That Exhibit C is neither a certificate of purchase or power of Attorney to bring it within the meaning of instrument under Section 2 and therefore not a registrable instrument.

It was further submitted that the law is trite that where the language of a statute is clear and unambiguous, the Court

should give it their natural meaning – Omatseye vs. FRN (Supra) Ratio 16. That Exhibit C is relevant to the determination of this case and was properly pleaded and therefore admissible under the Evidence Act. According to Counsel, once a piece of evidence is admissible under the Evidence Act no State Law can render same as inadmissible. That insofar as Sections 2 and 6 of Adamawa State Land Registration Law tend to render what is admissible under the Evidence Act inadmissible, the said provisions are inconsistent with the clear provision of the Evidence Act which is a Federal Enactment and liable to be declared null and void – Anagbado vs. Faruk (2019) 1 NWLR (Pt. 1653) at 292 at 296 Ratio 5.

It was further submitted that the Respondent is entitled to damages having led evidence to the effect that the Appellants have erected a fence on the land, that the law is trite that even if no damage was caused, the Respondent is entitled to award of damages – Gbemisola vs. Bolarinwa (2014) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1411) 1 at 9 Ratio 9. Counsel did not proffer any argument in respect of issue four formulated for determination. It is therefore deemed abandoned as is accordingly struck out.

In arguing issues five (5) and six (6) together, it was submitted that the propriety of the revocation of the land in dispute, as well as findings of the learned trial Judge on this issue is apt and cannot be faulted because issues have been joined and both parties extensively made submission on it – EFCC vs. Chidolue (2019)2 NWLR (Pt. 1657) 451 at 459, Paras. A-C: According to Counsel, the trial Court extensively dealt with Exhibit E in its judgment and adopted the issues decoded by the Respondent in determination of the case. That the trial Court considered all the 4 issues decoded by the Respondent and resolved same in his favour – Adesina vs. Ojo (2012)10 NWLR (Pt 1309) 561 at 576, Paras. F-G. He urged the Court to resolve the issues raised by the Respondent in his favour, dismiss the Appeal and affirm the Judgment of the lower Court.

In the Reply Brief, it was submitted that the Respondent cited the case of Anagbado vs. Faruk (2018) LPELR-44909 (SC), to support his proposition that once a piece of evidence is admissible under the evidence Act, no State law can render same inadmissible. That since Sections 2 and 6 of the Adamawa State Land Registration Law

tend to render what is admissible under the Evidence Act admissible, it should be declared null and void for being inconsistent with the provisions of the Evidence Act. According to Counsel in the recent case of Abdullahi vs. Adetutu (2020) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1711) 347 at 365, Paras. D-F held that where an unregistered registrable instrument is sought to be tendered for the purpose of proving or establishing title to land or interest in land, it would be inadmissible under Section 15 of the Land Instruments Registration Law. But that a document, registrable under the Land Instruments Registration Law, may be admitted in evidence without registration, if it is tendered, not as an instrument affecting land but only to establish evidence of a transaction between the parties. Learned Counsel also submitted that a careful perusal of the pleadings of the parties and their evidence before the trial Court indicates that issues were not joined as to the service of Exhibit K on the Respondent and that the trial Court raised the issue suo motu without inviting the parties to address it – Union Bank of Nigeria vs. Awmar Properties Ltd. (2018) LPELR-44376 (SC).

According to Counsel, the issue that Exhibit K failed to comply with the mandatory requirements of Section 9(1) and (2) of the Land Registration Law which requires that for any instrument such as Exhibit K to be registered, it must contain a description and a plan of the land was never raised nor canvassed by the parties at the trial Court. It is a fresh issue the Respondent is raising for the very first time in this appeal. That the leave of this Court ought to be sought and obtained before raising the issue.

As to Exhibits J4 and J5, Counsel submitted that it is trite law that anybody in possession of a certified true copy of public document can tender same in evidence and it is not mandatory that the maker of such document must be called as a witness as hitherto submitted by the Respondent – Salami vs. Ajadi (2007) LPELR- 8622 (CA).

Regarding Exhibits K1, 12, K2, 13 and L tendered by the Appellants, it was submitted that contrary to the Respondent’s insinuation, the makers of Exhibits K1, K2 and L testified before the trial Court. DW1, Alhaji Buba Gurama is the maker of Exhibits K1 and K2. His designation as the Chief Estate

Officer of the Ministry of Land and Survey is stated in Exhibit J3. DW2, Adamu Dawi Ali (the Assistant Chief Technical Officer Town Planning in the Federal Ministry of Environment, Housing and Urban Development (Page 274 of the Printed record) is the maker of Exhibit L. According to Counsel, there is nothing like Exhibits 12 and 13 in the Printed record. That as weighty as Exhibit C is, the maker did not testify.

On the issue canvassed and submitted in Paragraph 4.53 of the Respondent’s brief of argument that the operating words in Exhibit C are ‘reversion’ and ‘restoration.’ That Exhibit C is neither conferring, transferring, limiting, charging or extinguishing the right of the Respondent but rather restoring the legal interest of the Respondent which was extinguished vide Exhibit K. Hence, Exhibit C is not an instrument, it was submitted that this line of argument is preposterous and puerile. That the Supreme Court inKubor & Anor. vs. Dickson & Anor (2012) LPELR- 9817 (SC) held that by the use of the word restoration, it presupposes that something which was previously put in a particular place or position was

displaced and eventually place.

According to Counsel, since the revocation of the land of the Respondent was done by instrument of revocation, only a registrable instrument of reversion can restore it.

On the whole, the Court has been urged to dismiss the Appeal and accordingly uphold the judgment of the lower Court. I have amply considered the nature and circumstances surrounding the case, the argument of the learned counsel contained in the respective briefs thereof vis-a-vis the record of Appeal, as a whole.

DETERMINATION OF THE APPEAL
I deem it expedient to determine the Appeal on the following issues:-
Issue One:-
“Whether the revocation of the Respondent’s Certificate of Occupancy to the disputed land was done in accordance with the Land Use Act.”
Issue two:-
“Whether having regard to the evidence before the trial Court the Appellants have proved their title to the disputed land to warrant the Court enter Judgment in their favour.”

Exhibit K is the notice of the revocation of the Respondent’s Certificate of Occupancy. Section 9(1) and (2) of the Land Registration Law

requires that for any instrument such as Exhibit K to be registered it must contain a proper and sufficient description and a plan of the land affected. Upon proper examination of Exhibit K, it would be seen that there is no description of the land in dispute at all and no plan is attached to it. For purpose of emphasis, the provision of Section 9(1) of the Land Registration Law is herein reproduced:
9(1)(a) “No instrument executed after the commencement of this Law other than power of attorney, shall be registered unless, it contains a proper and sufficient description and subject to the regulation a plan of the land affected by such instrument.”
Where a statute provides for a method of doing a particular thing, that thing might not be done in any other way. See the case of Vascumi Investment (Nig.) Ltd & Ors vs Ladan (2016) LPELR-40516 (CA), where it was held thus:-
“The law is quite settled that where an enactment has specified a particular procedure or method for doing anything, it is not permissible for party or a person to deviate from the method or procedure so specified. This point has been made by this Court and the Supreme Court in several cases.

A careful look and scrutiny of Exhibit k shows that no such plan of the disputed land is attached to the exhibit. It therefore follows that having been prepared and registered in contravention of the clear provision of Section 28(6) of the Land Use Act and Section 9(1)(a) of Land Registration Law is invalid, null and void.
It therefore follows that Exhibit K which was illegally and irregularly obtained cannot divest the Respondent his legally obtained interest in the land in dispute by mere registration. In the case of Omiyale vs Macaulay & Ors (2009) 7 NWLR (Pt.1141) 597 Ratio 13 it was held that:-
“Mere registration does not and will not validate spurious or fraudulently instrument of title or transfer, the title remains invalid or ineffective.”
This Court having found on the evidence that the Governor revoked the Appellants’ right of occupancy not in the manner prescribed by the Land Use Act, I hereby declare the revocation invalid, and null and void – See the case of Osho vs. Foreign Finance Corporation (1991) LPELR-2801 (SC). Having declared the revocation of the Certificate

of Occupancy of the Respondent null and void, the issue of non registration of Exhibit C is of no moment. The lower Court was therefore right when it held at Page 341 of the Printed record that:-
“With these pieces of evidence even if there was any revocation at all, it was done not in conformity with the requirements in Sections 28 and 44 of the Land Use Act.”

Learned Appellant’s Counsel however submitted at Page 5 Paragraph 1.08 of the Appellants’ Reply Brief that the issue of service of Exhibit K was never canvassed or raised by the parties at the trial Court. A careful look at issue two of the Appellants’ Brief of Argument before the trial Court, the propriety of the revocation of the land in dispute was fully canvassed and argued at Pages 180 to 183 of the Printed record particularly Paragraphs 1.27 to 1.36 thereof, the Respondent on the other hand responded to these arguments in his brief before the trial Court at Pages 228 to 230 of the record particularly Paragraphs 4.61 to 4.66.
It therefore follows that the consideration as well as findings of the lower Court on this issue is apt and cannot be faulted

because issues have been joined and both parties have extensively made submissions on it. In the case of EFCC vs. Chidolue (2019) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1657) at 451 at 459 Paras. A-C, it was held thus:
“A Judge has the right in our adjectival law to use particular words or phrases, which, in his opinion, are germane to his evaluation of the facts of the case. In so far as he does that in line with the evidence before him, it will be unfair for counsel to castigate him or accuse him of raising issue suo motu. A Judge can only be accused of raising issue suo motu if the issue was never raised by any of the parties in the litigation. A Judge cannot be accused of raising issue suo motu if the issue was raised by both parties or by any of the parties in the proceedings. [Enekwe v. I.M.B. (Nig.) Ltd. (2006) 19 NWLR (Pt. 1013) 146 referred to.] (P. 458, Paras. F-H).”
Also in the case of Ikenta Best (Nig) Ltd vs. A.G Rivers State (2008) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1084) 622 Ratio 9, the Supreme Court held that:
“A Court can only be accused of raising an issue or a matter of fact suo motu if the issue or matter or fact did not exist in the litigation. A Court

cannot be accused of raising an issue or a matter of facts motu if the issue or matter in fact exists in the litigation. A Judge, by the nature of his adjudicatory functions, can draw inferences from stated facts in a case and by such inferences the Judge can arrive at conclusions. It will be wrong to say that inferences legitimately drawn from facts in the case are introduced suo motu.”

The first issue is therefore resolved in favour of the Respondent and against the Appellants.

It was the case of the Appellants/Defendants before the lower Court that the Land in dispute was allocated to Federal Ministry of Works, Housing and Urban Development. Both DW1 and DW3 admitted under cross-examination that requisition of land in their respective ministries is activated by an application and a successful applicant whether individual or Government organisation is issued with an approval in form of a grant or a Certificate of Occupancy.

That in case of any dispute arising, the ministry falls or relies on the grant or Certificate of Occupancy to resolve same. They also informed the lower Court that the grant or Certificate of Occupancy contains the

name of the allottee, the description and the quantity of the land allocated. See Pages 260, 270, 274 and 275 of the Printed record.

As fundamental as these two documents are (grant and Certificate of Occupancy) to the resolution of any dispute among the contending parties, the Appellants/Defendants failed to produce the document aforesaid for the lower Court to determine the size and location of the land granted the Federal Ministry of Works, from whom they

alleged to have bought it. In the case of Modu v. Aboja (2012) LPELR-14352 (CA), it was held that “One of the five different ways of proving title to land is by documents of title”. The 1st Appellant as DW5 stated under cross examination at Page 299 of the Printed record that:
“When all the parties were requested to produce their evidence of title to the disputed land the Federal Ministry of Works, Housing and Urban Development only produced minutes of site board meeting as evidence of title.”
The Ministry that has no good title to the disputed land cannot pass valid title to the Respondents.
The Respondent/Plaintiff in proof of his case before the trial Court called two witnesses including himself as PW1 and tendered Exhibits A, B, C, D and E respectively. Exhibit A is Right of Occupancy (R of O) No. GS/9156, Exhibit B is the Certificate of Occupancy No. GS/9156, Exhibit C, is a letter titled Re-Notice of Revocation of Certificate of Occupancy No. GS/9156, Exhibit D is Planning permission and Exhibit E is Police Investigation Report.
The Appellants having failed to tender the grant or Certificate of Occupancy which

they continuously claimed to have been granted to the Federal Ministry of Works, Housing and Urban Development, must fail in their claim against the land in dispute. The second issue is therefore resolved against the Appellants and in favour of the Respondent. Having resolved the two issues in favour of the Respondent and against the Appellants, this Appeal is unmeritorious and is hereby dismissed. The Judgment of the lower Court delivered on 9/10/2018 is hereby affirmed. Parties to bear their respective costs.

Counsel to the Respondent has filed a motion on notice on 5/10/2020 which he has not moved and argued during the hearing of the Appeal. It is therefore deemed as abandoned and is accordingly struck out.

CHIDI NWAOMA UWA, J.C.A.: I agree.

JAMES SHEHU ABIRIYI, J.C.A.: I agree.

Appearances:

S. ADEBOLE, with him, O. A. OGUNDEKO, ESQ. and A. O. OGUNYALE, ESQ. For Appellant(s)

ABUBAKAR SA’AD, ESQ., T. J. OJO, ESQ. and V. G. ABASIODIOM, ESQ. For Respondent(s)