ADAMAWA STATE URBAN PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS v. BAKARI & ORS (2020)

ADAMAWA STATE URBAN PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS v. BAKARI & ORS

(2020)LCN/14637(CA)

In The Court Of Appeal

(YOLA JUDICIAL DIVISION)

On Thursday, September 03, 2020

CA/YL/140/17

RATIO

PLEADINGS: EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE: The appellants alleged that the trial Court did not properly evaluate the evidence before it and that the 1st Respondent did not prove his case as to have been entitled to judgment. Evaluation of evidence entails the trial judge examining all the evidence before him before making his findings. This is achieved by placing all the evidence on an imaginary scale to see which side appears to outweigh the other. See, ECOBANK PLC VS. MOHAMMED (2014) LPELR – 23990 (CA) PP. 24 – 25, PARAS. B – C, ABDULKARIM & ORS VS. ANAZODO & ANOR (2006) LPELR – 7583 (CA) PP. 18 – 20, PARAS. B – C, LAFIA LOCAL GOVERNMENT VS. EXECUTIVE GOVERNMENT NASARAWA STATE & ORS (2012) LPELR – 20602(CA) 18 – 20, PARAS. B – C and AYALA VS. DANIEL & ORS (2019) LPELR – 47184 (CA) PP. 27 – 29, PARAS. D – C.
The appellants who alleged wrongful evaluation of evidence before the trial Court failed to prove it, in respect of the traditional evidence put forward by the 2nd – 4th respondents through whom the 1st Respondent derived his title. The trial Court heard and saw the witnesses, compared evidence adduced by the parties, weighed same on the imaginary scale before arriving at its decision.

On whether the 1st Respondent proved his claim at the trial Court, there are five ways of proving title to land, they are:
1. Traditional history.
2. Production of documents of title which must be authenticated.
3. Acts of ownership, selling, leasing or renting out all or part of the land or farming on part or a portion of it.

Acts of long possession and enjoyment of the land.
Proof of possession of connected on 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, IDUNDUN VS. OKUMAGBA (1976) LPELR – 1431 (SC) PP. 23 – 26, PARA. D; (1976) 9 – 10 SC 337, ARIJE VS. ARIJE & ORS (2018) LPELR – 44193 (SC) P. 34, PARAS. B – G, ILIYA & ANOR VS. LAMU & ANOR (2019) LPELR – 47048 (CA) PP. 19 – 20, PARAS. D – B, AYOOLA VS. ODOFIN (1984) 11 SC 120 and NKADO VS. OBIANO (1997) 5 NWLR (PT. 503) 31. As rightly argued by the learned counsel to the 1st Respondent, proof of one of the ways is enough to establish title, proof of all five ways is not a requirement. The 1st Respondent proved that he acquired his title from the 2nd – 4th Respondents; he placed before the trial Court sufficient evidence which entitled him to the declaratory reliefs sought at the trial Court. Per CHIDI NWAOMA UWA, 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

ADAMAWA STATE URBAN PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY 2. THE COMMISSIONER, ADAMAWA STATE MINISTRY OF LAND AND SURVEY 3. MINISTRY OF LAND AND SURVEY, ADAMAWA STATE 4. ATTORNEY-GENERAL, ADAMAWA STATE APPELANT(S)

And

1. UMAR BAKARI 2. YUSUF ISA DAMILU 3. IBRAHIM ISA DAMILU 4. ABUBAKAR ISA DAMILU RESPONDENT(S)

CHIDI NWAOMA UWA, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): The appeal is against the judgment of the High Court of Adamawa State delivered on 6/3/17 by Hafsat A. Abdulrahman, J. (hereafter referred to as the trial Court) in which judgment was delivered in favour of the 1st Respondent who was the plaintiff, some of the reliefs sought were granted.

At the trial Court, the 1st Respondent as plaintiff sought the following reliefs:
i. “A declaration that the plaintiff is entitled to the 3 plots of land lying and situate at Wuro Jabbe, Yola South Local Government measuring 150ft x 100ft.
ii. A declaration that the demolition of the plaintiff 2 flats of 3 bedrooms and shops, a borehole, a production hall with 2 staff rooms and a generator room built by the plaintiff thereon is altogether illegal, null and void.
iii. N2,000,000.00 general damages.
iv. N12,335,030.00 special damages which breakdown is as follows:
(as listed at pages 49 – 50 of the printed records of appeal)
v. Cost of this suit.”
ALTERNATIVELY:
i. “An order of Court directing the 5th, 6th and 7th Defendants to refund the sum of

N1,100,000.00 (One Million One Hundred Thousand Naira) to the plaintiff being the amount paid as consideration for the land should the 5th 6th and 7th Defendants title be found defective.
ii. An order of Court directing the 5th, 6th and 7th Defendants to pay N2,000,000.00 (Two Million Naira) damages to the plaintiff should their title be found to be defective.
iii. An order of Court directing the 5th, 6th and 7th Defendants to pay the sum of N12,335,030.00 (Two Million Three Hundred and Thirty Five Thousand Thirty Naira) special damages to the plaintiff should their title be found defective which breakdown is as follows:
(as listed at pages 49 – 50 of the printed records of appeal)
iv. Cost of this suit.”

At the hearing, two witnesses testified for the 1st Respondent and one witness each for the Appellants and the 2nd – 4th Respondents. At the close of the trial, judgment was delivered in favour of the 1st Respondent and the 2nd – 4th Respondents. Aggrieved by the said judgment the Appellants appealed to this Court.

The background facts as given by the Appellants is that the 1st Respondent’s case at the

trial Court bordered on land subject of a statutory right of occupancy situate at Wauru Jabbe, Jimeta – Yola, an urban Area. It was made out that the 1st Respondent alleged that he bought three pieces of land measuring 50ft x 100ft each from the 2nd, 3rd and 4th Respondents. The respondents claimed through traditional title to the land in dispute through inheritance. The 1st Respondent was said to have erected a structure on the land in dispute and claimed to have spent over N12 Million Naira on the structure. The Appellants caused the structures to be demolished making out that the necessary notices were given in line with the Town Planning Laws.

The appellants formulated the following two issues for the determination of the appeal thus:
1. “Whether the 1st Respondent has proved his case to entitle him to the declaratory reliefs granted him by the lower Court. (Distilled from Ground Two)
2. Whether the trial Court’s failure to properly evaluate the evidence before giving judgment to the Respondents has not occasioned a miscarriage of justice.” (Distilled from Ground One)

The 1st Respondent on his part formulated the

following two issues for the determination of the appeal thus:
a. “Whether the Trial Honourable Court had properly evaluated the evidence elicited before it before arriving at its judgment.
b. Whether the 1st Respondent had proved his claim to entitle him to the declaratory and other reliefs sought and granted in this suit.”

The 2nd – 4th Respondents adopted the issues as formulated by the 1st Respondent.

In arguing the appeal, A.M. Iliyasu Esq. Senior State Counsel, Adamawa State Ministry of Justice for the Appellants adopted and relied on his brief of argument filed on 13/4/16, deemed properly filed on 13/6/18 and further deemed properly filed on 5/6/2020 also, his reply brief to the 1st Respondent’s brief of argument filed on 3/12/18, deemed properly filed on 5/6/2020 and his reply brief to the 2nd – 4th Respondent’s brief of argument filed on 3/12/18 deemed properly filed and served on 5/6/2020 in urging us to allow the appeal and set aside the judgment of the trial Court.

The first and second issues were argued together. It was submitted that the 1st Respondent did not prove his case to entitle him to

the declaratory reliefs sought against the Appellants. It was submitted that the burden of proof is on the party that would fail if no evidence is called in support of an issue in dispute. See, ADIGHIJE VS. NWAOGU (2010) 12 NWLR (PT. 1209) 419 at 428. It was submitted that all the witnesses at the trial Court gave evidence to the effect that the land in dispute is a certificated land subject of a statutory right of occupancy. It was alleged that the trial Court did not properly evaluate the evidence before it. Further, that it is trite that a party seeking declaratory reliefs must succeed on the strength of his case and not rely on the weakness of the defence. See, GUNDIRI VS. NYAKO (2014) 2 NWLR (PT. 1391) 211 and INIAMA VS. AKPABIO (2008) 17 NWLR (PT. 1116) 255 AT 304 – 305.

On the part of the 1st Respondent the learned counsel M.P. Atsev Esq. adopted and relied upon his brief of argument filed on 2/10/18, deemed properly filed and served on 22/11/18 and further deemed properly filed and served on 5/6/20, as his argument in the appeal in urging us to dismiss the appeal and affirm the decision of the trial Court. In arguing his first issue, it was

submitted that the trial Court properly evaluated the evidence before it. On what evaluation of evidence is, reliance was placed on the cases of ABOLAJI VS. OYENIYI (2014) ALL FWLR (PT. 746) PAGE 589 at 592. It was submitted that the trial Court evaluated the evidence before it in arriving at its decision, reference was made to pages 153, 154, 155 and 156 of the Printed Records of Appeal. Also, JEGEDE & 2 ORS VS. OLUWASESAN (2013) ALL FWLR (PT. 671) PAGE 1848 at 1503, PARAS. G – H. It was concluded on this issue that the Appellants did not show how the trial Court failed in its duty and how it led to a miscarriage of justice.

On his second issue, it was submitted that the 1st Respondent as plaintiff proved his title to the land in dispute and how his property on the land was demolished. On ways to prove title to land, reliance was placed on the cases of ODUNZE VS. NWOSU (2007) ALL FWLR (PT. 379) PAGE 1295 AT 1303, PARAS. B – D, ARUM VS. NWOBODO (2013) ALL FWLR (PT. 688) PAGE 870 AT 893, PARAS. E – G AND AWODI VS. AJAGBE (2009) ALL FWLR (PT. 454) PAGE 1413 AT 1433 – 1434, PARAS. C – H. It was argued that the Appellants who

alleged that compensation had been paid in respect of the land in dispute failed to lead evidence to that effect. See, CALABAR CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE, THRIFT AND CREDIT SOCIETY LTD & 2 ORS VS. BASSEY EBANG EKPO (2008) ALL FWLR (PT.418) PAGE 198 AT 224, PARAS. B – D. It was concluded on this issue that the appeal is limited to the grounds of appeal and other salient decisions of the trial Court not appealed against which are deemed accepted. See, WOMILOJU & ORS. VS. ANIBIRE & ORS (2010) ALL FWLR (PT. 529) PAGE (1002) AT 1020, PARA. C.

On the part of the 2nd – 4th Respondents, the learned counsel, Ahmed Isa Esq. filed his brief of argument on 31/10/18, deemed properly filed and served on 22/6/20 and further deemed on 5/6/20, in urging us to affirm the judgment of the trial Court. The learned counsel adopted the issues as formulated by the 1st respondent. On evaluation of evidence, it was submitted that the trial Court properly evaluated the evidence adduced by the witnesses before it, reference was made to pages 153, 154, 155 and 156 of the printed records of appeal and the case of GUARDIAN NEWSPAPERS LTD VS. AJEH (2011) ALL FWLR (PT.

584) PAGE 1 AT 17 – 18, PARAS. E – A.

On the second issue, learned counsel adopted the submissions of the learned counsel to the 1st Respondent in respect of his second issue. It was further submitted that the 1st Respondent placed enough evidence before the Court and was entitled to the declaratory reliefs sought. See, ODUNZE VS. NWOSU (2007) ALL FWLR (PT. 379) PAGE 1295 at 1308. It was concluded on this issue that the burden of proof was on the Appellants to prove that the land in dispute is a government layout and that compensation had been paid to the 2nd – 4th Respondents.

In reply to the submissions of the learned counsel to the 1st Respondent in response to issue one, it was reargued that the trial Court did not properly evaluate the evidence adduced before it before arriving at its decision. See, OSHIYEMI VS. AKINTE (1995) 2 NWLR (PT. 379), 555 and SANUSI VS. AMEYOGUN (1992) 4 NWLR (PT. 237) 527 AT 554 at 568 – 569, PARAGRAPHS G – A.

In response to the submissions on behalf of the 2nd – 4th Respondent, it was submitted that the 2nd – 4th Respondents failed to enumerate situations where an

appellate Court can interfere with the evaluation of evidence by the trial Court. See, GUARDIAN NEWSPAPERS LTD VS. AJEH (supra), OLODO VS. JOSIAH (2011) ALL FWLR (PT. 573) PAGE 1 SC AND MAGAJI VS. ODOFIN (1978) 4 SC 91.

The issues as formulated by the respective parties are similar. The two issues distilled for the determination of the appeal by the appellant will be determined together as argued. The two issues for determination as identified by the parties are on evaluation of evidence. The appellants alleged that the trial Court did not properly evaluate the evidence before it and that the 1st Respondent did not prove his case as to have been entitled to judgment. Evaluation of evidence entails the trial judge examining all the evidence before him before making his findings. This is achieved by placing all the evidence on an imaginary scale to see which side appears to outweigh the other. See, ECOBANK PLC VS. MOHAMMED (2014) LPELR – 23990 (CA) PP. 24 – 25, PARAS. B – C, ABDULKARIM & ORS VS. ANAZODO & ANOR (2006) LPELR – 7583 (CA) PP. 18 – 20, PARAS. B – C, LAFIA LOCAL GOVERNMENT VS. EXECUTIVE GOVERNMENT NASARAWA STATE & ORS

(2012) LPELR – 20602(CA) 18 – 20, PARAS. B – C and AYALA VS. DANIEL & ORS (2019) LPELR – 47184 (CA) PP. 27 – 29, PARAS. D – C.
The appellants who alleged wrongful evaluation of evidence before the trial Court failed to prove it, in respect of the traditional evidence put forward by the 2nd – 4th respondents through whom the 1st Respondent derived his title. The trial Court heard and saw the witnesses, compared evidence adduced by the parties, weighed same on the imaginary scale before arriving at its decision. The trial Court was in a better position to assess first-hand the evidence adduced before the Court. For instance, the Appellants who alleged that compensation had been paid to the 2nd – 4th Respondents in respect of the land in dispute did not lead evidence to establish their contention and to prove that the land in dispute is a government layout. There was no proof of miscarriage of justice as alleged against the trial Court. It is trite that he who asserts/alleges the affirmative has the onus of proof. The trial Court reviewed the evidence before it, considered the

totality of the evidence on the issues raised in order to determine whether the evidence supports a finding of fact, which the party adducing the evidence seeks the trial Court to make. If compensation was paid, there should be evidence in its support, also if the land in dispute is a government layout there should also be evidence to that effect. The Appellants failed to show or highlight where and how the trial Court failed in its duties. At pages 153 – 156 of the printed records of appeal, the trial Court after reviewing the evidence adduced at the preceding pages, evaluated, criticized and appreciated the evidence adduced by the parties where appropriate. I am of the humble but, firm view that the trial Court properly evaluated the evidence before the Court before arriving at its decision.

Acts of long possession and enjoyment of the land.
5. Proof of possession of connected on 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, IDUNDUN VS. OKUMAGBA (1976) LPELR – 1431 (SC) PP. 23 – 26, PARA. D; (1976) 9 – 10 SC 337, ARIJE VS. ARIJE & ORS (2018) LPELR – 44193 (SC) P. 34, PARAS. B – G, ILIYA & ANOR VS. LAMU & ANOR (2019) LPELR – 47048 (CA) PP. 19 – 20, PARAS. D – B, AYOOLA VS. ODOFIN (1984) 11 SC 120 and NKADO VS. OBIANO (1997) 5 NWLR (PT. 503) 31. As rightly argued by the learned counsel to the 1st Respondent, proof of one of the ways is enough to establish title, proof of all five ways is not a requirement. The 1st Respondent proved that he acquired his title from the 2nd – 4th Respondents; he placed before the trial Court sufficient evidence which entitled him to the declaratory reliefs sought at the trial Court.

The DW1 (Suleiman Mamman Shallakuza) under cross examination gave evidence in line with that of the 1st Respondent to the effect that it was the

government that demolished the structures put up by the 1st Respondent. I hold that the 1st Respondent proved his case and the trial Court was rightly to have held so. The judgment of the trial Court is not perverse to warrant a reversal by this Court.

I resolve the jointly resolved issues against the Appellants. The Appeal is unmeritorious, I dismiss it.
The judgment of the trial Court in Suit No. ADSY/54/2010 is affirmed.
Parties to bear their respective costs.

JAMES SHEHU ABIRIYI, J.C.A.: I read in advance in draft the judgment just delivered by my learned brother Chidi Nwaoma Uwa JCA.

My learned brother has dealt exhaustively with the issues for determination. I have nothing more useful to add. I adopt the reasoning and conclusion in the lead judgment as mine in dismissing the appeal for lacking in merit.
I abide by all the order in the lead judgment including the order as to costs.

ABDULLAHI MAHMUD BAYERO, J.C.A.: I agree.

Appearances:

A.M. ILIYASU ESQ. SSC II, ADAMAWA STATE MINISTRY OF JUSTICE For Appellant(s)

M.P. ATSEV ESQ., with him, C.A. AJIBADE ESQ. – for 1st Respondent
AHMED ISA ESQ. – for 2nd – 4th Respondents For Respondent(s)