CHIEF KOLAWOLE FILANI v. MR. AKINYEMI ONIPEDE & ORS
(2019)LCN/13807(CA)
RATIO
LAND LAW: DECLARATION OF TITLE: WHAT MUST BE PROVED WHEN RELYING ON TRADITIONAL HISTORY
An individual who seeks a declaration of title to land by conventional historical past should show his root of title to the land. The place he traces his title to a specific individual, he should additional show how that individual bought his personal title or got here to have title vested in him, together with, the place mandatory, the household that initially owned the land. The burden of proof on the Plaintiff shouldn’t be discharged even the place the scales are evenly weighed between the events. ARCHIBONG VS EDAK (2006) 7 NWLR PT 980 Pg. 485, DIKE Vs OKOLOEDO (1999) 10 NWLR Pt 623 Pg. 359. OTANMA Vs YOUDUBAGHA (2006) 2 NWLR Pt 964 Pg. 337.
LAND LAW: DECLARATION OF TITLE: 5 WAYS OF ESTABLISHING TITLE OR OWNERSHIP TO LAND
The appellant in his transient had recapped the 5 (5) methods of proving or establishing title or possession to land. The Appellant thereafter, selected to determine and show his case by conventional proof. AYOOLA VS ODOFIN (1984) 11 SC Pg. 120, EWO VS ANI (2004) 17 NSCQR Pg. 36, NKADO VS OBIANO (1997) 5 NWLR Pt. 503 Pg. 31, NKWO VS IBOE (1998) 7 NWLR Pt. 558 Pg. 354 ADESANYA VS ADEROUNMU (2009) 6 SC Pt. II Pg. 18.PER UZO IFEYINWA NDUKWE-ANYANWU, J.C.A.
BURDEN OF PROOF IN DECALRATION OF TITLE TO LAND
A plaintiff who claims a declaration of title to land has the burden of setting out clearly by who and the way the land was based and the names of individuals who has exercised acts of possession on the land earlier than it devolved upon him. OLOKOTINTIN VS SARUMI (2002) 13 NWLR Pt. 784 Pg. 307.PER UZO IFEYINWA NDUKWE-ANYANWU, J.C.A.
ADMISSION OF A PARTY AGAINST HIS OWN INTEREST
The place there are admissions by a celebration in opposition to his curiosity, such admissions will likely be admissible in opposition to the individual, AJIDE VS KELANI (1985) three NWLR Pt. 12 Pg. 248. This isn’t to say, nevertheless, that admission Parsee is conclusive proof of your complete matter in litigation but it surely stands firmly with reference to the admission in opposition to the individual making it. Additionally it have to be seen in relation to your complete proof earlier than the Courtroom to know the load to connect to it. OJIEGBE VS OKWARANYIA (1962) 2 SCNLR Pg. 358, NWANKWO VS NWANKWO (1995) 5 NWLR Pt. 394 Pg. 153, SEISMOGRAPH SERVICES (NIG) LTD VS EYUAFE (1976) 9-10 SC Pg. 135, AKANINWO VS NSIRIM (2008) LPELR 321.PER UZO IFEYINWA NDUKWE-ANYANWU, J.C.A.
WHAT A PARTY RELYING ON EVIDENCE OF TRADITIONAL HISTORY MUST PROVE
It’s trite {that a} occasion counting on proof of conventional historical past should plead his root of title not solely that, he should present in his pleadings who these ancestors of his had been and the way they got here to personal and possess the land and ultimately go it to him, in any other case his declare will fail. Additionally the place an individual traces the foundation of his title to an individual or household he should set up how that individual or household additionally got here to have title vested in him or it. IBIKUNLE VS LAWANI (2007) three NWLR Pt. 1022 Pg. 580, OKOKO VS DAKOLO (2006) 14 NWLR Pt. 1000 Pg. 401.PER UZO IFEYINWA NDUKWE-ANYANWU, J.C.A.
DUTY OF A PLAINTIFF PLEADING TRADITIONAL HISTORY IN A CLAIM FOR DECLARATION OF TITLE
In pleading conventional historical past in a declare for declaration of title, the plaintiff is predicted to relate the genealogical tree from the unique proprietor, the ancestor, in generations appurtenant to him down the road to the claimant/Appellant. In different phrases, he should show who based the land, in what method the land was based and the circumstances resulting in it, and the successive individuals to whom the land thereafter devolved by way of an unbroken chain or in such a manner that there isn’t any hole which can’t be defined.ODI VS IYALA (2004) eight NWLR PT 875 PG.283 EWO VS ANI (SUPRA).
The place a claimant for title to land who pleads conventional historical past fails to show his root of title by meaning, he can not flip round to depend on acts of possession and possession to show his title to the land. In such a case, the Courtroom is obliged to dismiss the claimants declare. OYADARE Vs KEJI (2005) 7 NWLR Pt 925 Pg. 571.
In legislation, it isn’t enough for a celebration who depends on conventional historical past for proof of title to land to merely plead that he, and earlier than him his predecessors-in-title had owned and possessed the land from time past human reminiscence. He should certainly, plead and show the next;
(a) Who based the land?
(b) How the land was based?
(c) The particulars of the intervening homeowners by way of who he claims.
EZEOKONKWO Vs OKEKE (2002) 11 NWLR Pt 777 Pg. 1 PER UZO IFEYINWA NDUKWE-ANYANWU, J.C.A.
CIVIL LITIGATION: WHAT A PARTY IN CIVIL MATTERS IS ENTITLED TO
A celebration in civil issues is barely entitled to judgment if a trial Courtroom believes and accepts his proof and if such proof helps his case. The mere incontrovertible fact that the Courtroom rejected the proof of a defendant doesn’t entitle the plaintiff to judgmentBELLO VS ARUWA (1999) eight NWLR Pt. 615 Pg. 454.
THE PLAINTIFF MUST RELY ON THE STRENGHT OF HIS CASE IN DECLARATION OF TITLE
It’s trite legislation that with a purpose to achieve a declare for declaration, the plaintiff should show his case and depend on the power of his case COMMISSIONER OF LANDS MID WESTERN STATE VS CHIEF EDO OSAGIE (1973) LPELR 2933; AKINOLA VS OLUWO (1962) LPELR 25101 the place the Supreme Courtroom per Unsworth JSC held-
The trial choose held that the plaintiff had failed to determine his case and stated that the plaintiff should succeed on the power of his personal case and never on the weak point of the defendants case.”PER UZO IFEYINWA NDUKWE-ANYANWU, J.C.A.
In The Courtroom of Enchantment of Nigeria
On Friday, the 18th day of October, 2019
UZO IFEYINWA NDUKWE-ANYANWU, J.C.A. (Delivering the Main Judgment): That is an attraction in opposition to the judgment of the Excessive Courtroom of Ekiti State delivered on the 30th day of April, 2018 by Honourable Justice L. O. Ogundana.
The information briefly acknowledged are as follows:-
By a Writ of Summons and Assertion of Declare filed on 12th day of Might, 2014, the Appellant as claimant claimed in opposition to the Respondent as defendant. The claimant/Appellant claimed as follows-
(a) A declaration that the land situate, mendacity and being at Esisa (Omodowa tuntun) Ikole-Ekiti belongs solely to Filani household of Omodowa quarters Ikole-Ekiti.
(b) A sum of N10 Million basic damages for acts of trespass dedicated and nonetheless being dedicated by the defendants, their brokers, servants or privies on the claimants household land situate, mendacity and being at Esisa (Omodowa tuntun) Ikole-Ekiti.
(c) An order of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants their servants brokers or privies from committing additional acts of trespass on the claimants household land situate, laying and being at Esisa (Omodowa tuntun) Ikole-Ekiti.
The Respondents as defendants filed an Amended Assertion of defence along with their Counter Declare on the 25th day of April, 2016. The Appellant thereafter, filed an Amended Reply transient. Pleadings had been due to this fact joined. Trial commenced with the claimant/Appellant testifying as PW1 and known as four different witnesses. The Respondents as defendants known as four defence Witnesses. Addresses had been filed and brought.
In its thought-about judgment the discovered trial choose thought-about the competence of the Respondents Amended Assertion of Defence and Counter Declare. He held that the Amended Assertion of Defence and the Counter Declare was not correct earlier than the Courtroom. Following the instances of SLB CONSORTIUM VS NNPC (2011) 9 NWLR Pt. 1252 Pg. 312 and OKAFOR VS NWEKE (2007) LPELR 2412, the discovered trial Decide struck out the Assertion of Defence and the Counter Declare.
In all, the discovered trial Decide held that the declare of the claimant failed in its entirety and dismissed it for missing in benefit.
The Appellant was dissatisfied with the choice of the Excessive Courtroom of Ikole-Ekiti Judicial Division therefore this attraction. The Appellant filed a Discover with four Grounds of Enchantment on the 31st day of July, 2018.
In accordance with the Guidelines of this Courtroom, the Appellant filed his Appellants transient on third day of April, 2019, however deemed correctly filed and served on 13th day of Might, 2019. In response the respondents filed their respondents transient on seventh day of June, 2019.
The Appellant in his transient, articulated a sole concern to be decided by this Courtroom as recapped hereunder.
Whether or not having regard to the totality of the proof proffered on the decrease Courtroom, the discovered trial choose rightly concluded that the claimant did not conclusively show his entitlement to a declaration of title to the land in dispute resulting in a dismissal of the motion.
The Respondents additionally articulated a sole concern for willpower by the Courtroom;
Whether or not the trial choose was proper in dismissing the declare of the claimant/appellant having regard to the totality of the proof adduced on the decrease Courtroom.
The only real concern articulated by each events are the identical in content material, nevertheless, I’ll use the one articulated by the Appellant, the proprietor of this attraction.
The Appellants counsel submitted {that a} claimant searching for for a declaration of title over a land has a complete of 5 methods to select from to show his case to entitle him to a declaration. They’re as follows-
(i) Proof by conventional proof
(ii) Proof by manufacturing of paperwork of title duly authenticated except they’re paperwork of twenty or extra years outdated produced from correct custody.
(iii) Proof by act of possession in and over the land in dispute equivalent to leasing, promoting, making grant of farming on it or a portion thereof extending over a enough size of time quite a few and constructive sufficient to warrant the inference that the individuals exercising such proprietary acts are the true homeowners of the land.
(iv) Proof by acts of lengthy possession and delight of the land which prima facie could also be proof of possession not solely by the actual piece of land with inference to such acts as executed, but additionally of different land so situate and linked therewith by locality of similarity that presumption underneath S.46 of 146 of the Proof Act applies and the inference might be drawn that what’s true of the one piece of land is prone to be true of the opposite piece of land.
(v) Proof by possession of the linked or adjoining land in circumstances rendering it possible that the proprietor of such linked or adjoining land in circumstances rendering it possible that the homeowners of such linked or adjoining land would as well as be the proprietor of the land in dispute.
See IDUNDUN VS OKUMAGBA (1976) 1 NWLR Pt. 200 Pg. 200, ADDAH VS UBANDAWAKI (2015) 13 EJSC Pg. 125 AIYEOLA VS PEDRO (2015) four EJSC. Pg.97.
The Realized counsel in his submission acknowledged that the discovered trial choose did not correctly and dispassionately consider the standard proof of the Plaintiff/Appellant holding that there was a number of contradictions within the proof of the Prosecution witnesses. He additionally argued that this analysis by the trial choose had occasioned a miscarriage of justice.
Counsel conceded that the Appellate Courtroom seldom interfered with the analysis and findings of a trial Courtroom besides similar is perverse and never based mostly on a correct appraisal and analysis of proof given in help of every partys case. See FATOYINBO VS WILLIAMS (1956) SCNLR Pg. 274. FASHANU VS ADEKOYA (1974)SC Pg.83. IN LAYINKA VS MAKINDE (2002) LPELR 1970. UWAIFO JSC held on when an appellate Courtroom will intrude with the analysis of proof by a trial Courtroom thus.
When an appellate Courtroom is happy that the trial Courtroom had failed to attract the proper inference from proved or accepted information or has wrongly assessed the probative values of undisputed proof, it’ll intrude with the findings, and the place applicable make its personal findings and put aside the improper or mistaken choice.”
Counsel additionally submitted {that a} occasion who claims possession of a chunk of land or a declaration can solely succeed if he establishes his declare for a declaration of title by compelling and cogent evidenceRABIU VS ADEBAYO (2012) 15 NWLR Pg. 125.
Counsel urged the Courtroom to discountenance the Appellants reply to the Assertion of Defence and Courter Declare already struck out as one cant place one thing on nothing and count on it to face: APP VS OBIANO (2018) LPELR 44646, AJI VS CHAD BASIN AUTHORITY (2015) LPELR 24562.
Counsel opined that the Assertion of Defence along with the Counter Declare and the reply had been jettisoned due to this fact the claimants Assertion of Declare was the one pleading left within the swimsuit beneath.
Coun
