CHIEF JACOB N. OBASI v. SLYVANUS O. EBENUGWU
(2014)LCN/6898(CA)
RATIO
WHAT THE COURTS CONSIDER IN ESTABLISHING EQUITABLE TITLE TO PROPERTY
In order to establish equitable title to property, the law has long been established that where a person pays for land and obtain receipt for the payment by his going into possession and remaining in possession of the property, an equitable interest is created for him in the land such as would defeat the title of a subsequent legal estate purchaser with knowledge of the equitable interest in the land; such a situation as stated here creates an agreement for sale, See Shobajo vs. Ikotun & Anor (2002).
There are five ways of proving or establishing title to land or ownership of land. These are by (a) Traditional evidence (b) Production of documents duly authenticated (c) By positive acts of ownership extending sufficient over a length of time (d) By acts of long possession and enjoyment of the land (e) 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. The law is that the establishment of one of the five ways is sufficient proof of ownership. See Nkado vs. Obians (1997) 5 NWLR (PT 503) at 31.
It has been decided that when a person pays for land, obtains receipt of payment followed by going into possession and remaining in possession, an equitable interest is created for him on the land. See the case of Elaran vs. Aderonpe (2008) 11 NWLR (PT 1094) 50 at 58 Ratio 10. Per UWANI MUSA ABBA AJI (PJ), J.C.A
EVIDENCE: WHAT A CLAIMANT MUST SHOW IN PROOF OF POSSESSION OF LAND
Section 143 Evidence Act (2011) (As Amended) provides:- “when the question is whether any person is owner of anything of which he is shown to be in possession, the burden of proving that he is not the owner is on the person who affirms that he is not the owner”. The law therefore presumes the person in possession of land to be the owner. Therefore, in order to displace a party in possession, a claimant has to show that the party in possession is in possession without his consent or his tenant. See Jinadu vs. Esurombi – Aro (2005) 14 NWLR CA (944) 142 CA. Until the contrary is proved, possession in law follows the right to possess. Thus, it is not enough to possess. Also, it is not enough that a claimant is able to show he has been in possession of land for the requisite number of years. The burden on him is higher than that. He has to show something more. He has to show that he is the one claiming that land owned by his title has now become his because the owner has either been dispossessed or has discontinued possession. Therefore, the claimant has the clear onus to prove that the title holder has been dispossessed or has discontinued his possession see Majekodumni vs. Abina (2002) 3 NWLR (PT. 755) 720 SC. Per UWANI MUSA ABBA AJI (PJ), J.C.A
