CYPRIAN ANUMUDU v. PETER AGWAMBA
(2019)LCN/13430(CA)
In The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
On Friday, the 7th day of June, 2019
CA/OW/79/2015
RATIO
PROPERTY LAW: SALE UNDER NATIVE LAW AND CUSTOM: HOW TO COMPLETE A SALE UNDER NATIVE LAW AND CUSTOM
See Erinoso v. Owokoniran (supra) by Idigbe, JSC. When he, delivering the judgment of the Supreme Court said, at p. 483: “Was it a sale under native law and custom or under English law In order to transfer an absolute title under native law and custom, it is necessary that such a sale should be concluded in the presence of witnesses “who saw the actual handing over” of the property from Fafunwa branch of the family to Oladiran (see Cole v. Folami 1 FSC 66).PER THERESA NGOLIKA ORJI-ABADUA, J.C.A.
PROPERTY LAW: SALE UNDER ENGLISH LAW: HOW TO TRANSFER TITLE UNDER ENGLISH LAW
In order to transfer the legal title under “English Law” a deed of conveyance in respect of the same should be executed in favour of Oladiran by Fafunwa branch of the Ojomo Eyisha family; if the sale under “English Law” was imperfect then, on the evidence that Oladiran bought the land and went into possession, she acquired merely an equitable interest in the land.”PER THERESA NGOLIKA ORJI-ABADUA, J.C.A.
WORDS AND MEANING: DEFINITION OF TRANSFER UNDER PROPERTY LAW
Also, in the case of Lagos State Bulk Purchase Corporation vs. Purification Techniques (Nig.) Ltd. (2013) 7 NWLR Part 1352 page 82, the Supreme Court, per Muhammad, J.S.C., expressed that:”The word ‘transfer’ in law, is wide, having a lot of variables: it can represent the way in which the title to property is conveyed from one person to another. It can be the sale and every other method, direct or indirect, of disposing of or parting with property or with an interest therein, or with the possession thereof, or of fixing a lien upon property or upon an interest therein, absolutely or conditionally, voluntarily or involuntarily, by or without judicial proceedings, as a conveyance, sale, payment, pledge, mortgage lien, encumbrance, gift, security or otherwise. It can even include the act of giving property by will. (See Blacks Law Dictionary, Sixth edition, page 1497).” PER THERESA NGOLIKA ORJI-ABADUA, J.C.A.
WHETHER MERE HANIDNG OVER OF LAND WITHOUT ANY OTHER UNDERSTANDING AMOUNTS TO AQUISITION UNDER NATIVE AND CUSTOMARY LAW
There are many ways an interest in land can be acquired under the native law and custom of a community. In this respect, it is prudent that they be taken cognisance of by this Court to ascertain whether mere handing over of a piece of land by an owner of land to another without any form of understanding existing between the parties, is one of the modes of acquisition fully recognised under the customary laws. In an unreported decision of this Court in CA/OW/280/2011- Between: Okechukwu Onuoha and Obiageri Onuoha delivered on the 18th February, 2019, it was held that the five methods by which title to land can be proved in the Court of law have nothing to do with the mode of acquisition of title to land which may be by:
(a) First settlement on the land and deforestation of the virgin land;
(b) Conquest during tribal wars;
(c) Gift,
(d) Grant – customary
(e) Sale,
(f) Inheritance, etc, etc.
..It is well established that before a plaintiff can succeed in a claim for declaration of title to land, the Court must be satisfied as to the precise nature of the title he claims, that is to say, whether it is title by virtue of original ownership, customary grant, conveyance, sale under customary law, long possession or otherwise and there must be evidence establishing the title of the nature claimed. PER THERESA NGOLIKA ORJI-ABADUA, J.C.A.
HOW DOES A PARTY ESTABLISH GIFT INTER VIVOS UNDER CUSTOMARY LAW
The salient question is, “How does he establish such gifts of lands inter vivos under customary law To prove gift of land inter vivos, there must be evidence of actual handing over of the land and acceptance thereof in the presence of witnesses. See Ayinke v. Ibidunni (1959) 4 FSC 280 at 282 where Ademola, C.J.F., observed that disposition of properties could be made under native law and custom by a gift followed by a transfer of the property, or a declaration by a man on his death bed in the presence of witnesses. It is pertinent to note that irrespective of the document tendered by the Appellant, his only means of acquisition of the said property was by customary grant, and this he has to prove. I must observe that the Court below was engulfed by the document tendered by the Appellant in proof of the customary gift inter vivos claimed by him. He pleaded ownership by customary gift inter vivos, and that was what he was expected to prove and nothing more. Whether the document referred to customary gift or not, he pleaded customary gift.PER THERESA NGOLIKA ORJI-ABADUA, J.C.A.
PROPERTY LAW: WHERE CUSTOMARY LAW IS CLAIMED UNDER PROPERTY LAW, NATIVE LAW MUST BE PROVEN
It is trite law that in every litigation in the High Court where tenets of customary law and statutes are applied, native law must be proved. Merely asserting that ‘it is under native law and custom’ is not prima facie the native law and custom. See Ogunleye v Oni (1990) 2 NWLR Part 135 page 745, per Belgore, J.S.C. (As he then was). Since he based his claim under the customary law, it is clear that customary law requires no writing for the transfer or gift, whether by way of sale or by way of gift. He is required to prove the actual handing over of the land to the donee in the presence of witnesses and an acceptance by him of the gift. PER THERESA NGOLIKA ORJI-ABADUA, J.C.A.
PROPERTY LAW: CUSTOMARY LAW: THE IMPORTANCE OF WITNESSES IN CUSTOMARY LAND TRANSACTIONS
“It is an elementary principle of law and as had been held in a plethora of authorities that sale, transfer, grant or gift of land under native/customary law is constituted by the handing over of the land so transferred in the presence of witnesses. The presence of witnesses is not only of evidential value, it is also a necessary part of the transaction.This is so because writing is foreign to native customary law and custom. The presence of witnesses gives the transaction not only solemnity but also validity, See Kamalu vs. Ojoh (2000) 11 NWLR (Part 679) P.505 at 517 Paras D-E, Cole vs. Folami (1956) 1. F.S.C 66 @ 68, Ajayi v.Olanrewaju (1969) 1 All NLR 382 @ 387, Orun-nengimo V. Egebe (2008) 9 S.C.L.R (ph.7) pg. 82 @ 102.” See Akinyele & ors vs. Adebayo (2015) LPELR-CA/AK/114/2012 per Denton West, J.C.A.PER THERESA NGOLIKA ORJI-ABADUA, J.C.A.
JUSTICES
THERESA NGOLIKA ORJI-ABADUA Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
ITA GEORGE MBABA Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
IBRAHIM ALI ANDENYANGTSO Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
Between
CYPRIAN ANUMUDU Appellant(s)
AND
PETER AGWAMBA Respondent(s)
THERESA NGOLIKA ORJI-ABADUA, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): The Appellant commenced the suit leading to this appeal before the Customary Court of Imo State siting in Eziama, Ikeduru District in Suit No. CC/EZ/IK/6/1999 and sought the following reliefs:
1. A declaration that the Plaintiff (as against the defendant) is entitled to Customary Right of Occupancy in respect of the following parcels of land which are situated and lying at various locations in Umueze Uzoagba Ikeduru: Ala Ukwu-egbu Uzo-Umuehihe (about 10 FarmLands); Uhu-Umuamara (about four farmlands); Nkpuru-ite (about 6 farmlands); Ala Ukwu-egbu Ihu-amara (about 5 farmlands); Azu College (about 4 farmlands); Uhu-ama Nwaibe (about a farmland and defendant is preparing to build on this land); Uhu Nwaosuodueke (about 9 farmlands); Ala Chekomam Obi (about 5 farm lands); Okpuru Onye Kamakeya (about 12 farmlands in all); Uhu-azuru (about 6 farmlands); Uhu-ekiti (about 5 farmlands); Uzo-amuzo (about 5 farmlands; and Ama-Ocha Uzo-Akabo (about 6 farmlands).
2. Perpetual injunction restraining the defendant, his agents, servants, or any person claiming through or under him howsoever
1
and in whatever manner from entering into the land or in any way interfering, inter-meddling and doing any act inconsistent with the rights, interest, possession, and use of the land by the Plaintiff.?
Hearing was conducted in the matter and in the end, the trial Customary Court delivered its judgment on the 4th June, 2007 wherein it held inter alia that the Plaintiff has been in effective possession of the lands in dispute hence when he challenged the building project of the Defendant and his brother in 1993, about six years before the institution of the case, the building project was halted till then. They also found that Exhibit B buttressed the claim of the Plaintiff that the defendant is a stranger and cannot own lands contiguous with the Plaintiff. The Defendant did not field any witness in support of his contention. The Court believes that the Plaintiff led credible and superior evidence in proof of his claim. It then granted the reliefs sought by the Appellant.
?
The said judgment was challenged by the Defendant, the present Respondent herein, before the Customary Court of Appeal of Imo State through a Notice of Appeal he filed on the 2nd July,
2
2007 which he anchored on two grounds of appeal. Then on 15/10/2008, the Respondent was granted the leave of the Court below to amend his Notice of Appeal and the Proposed Amended Notice of Appeal attached to his Motion on Notice as Exhibit B was deemed as properly filed and served on that same day. Also, the Appellant?s Brief of Argument attached to the Motion was deemed as properly filed and served on that date. Briefs were exchanged and on 19/3/2009, the appeal was heard and, allowed by the Court below. As a result, the said judgment of the Ikeduru Customary Court sitting in Eziama which was delivered on the 4th June, 2007 was set aside together with the consequential orders made therein, and, the same was dismissed. It is against the said decision of the Court below that the Appellant, who was the Respondent at the Court below, filed a Notice of Appeal on the 15th May, 2009 which he founded on five grounds of appeal. The record of appeal was transmitted to this Court on 21/5/2015 but it was deemed as duly compiled and transmitted on 21/6/2016.
?
In the Appellant?s Brief of Argument, three issues were propounded for determination in this appeal,
3
that is to say:
1. Whether the lower Customary Court of Appeal was correct on point of Customary law to have held that the precise nature or basis of the Plaintiff?s (Appellant herein) claim for declaration of Customary Right of Occupancy cannot be ascertained either from his particulars of claim or from his evidence. (This relates to grounds two and three of grounds of appeal.
2. Whether the lower Customary Court of Appeal was right on point of Customary Law to have reversed various findings of facts/decisions of the trial Customary Court which findings and decisions had favoured the Appellant (Plaintiff). (This relates to grounds one and four of the Grounds of Appeal).
3. Having regards to the circumstances of this case, whether the lower Customary Court of Appeal was right that the Appellant (Plaintiff) did not discharge the legal onus upon him to prove entitlement to the reliefs claimed. (This relates to ground five of the Grounds of Appeal).
The Appellant via his Counsel, O. C. Ewurum, Esq., reproduced the lower Court?s conclusion depicted at pages 135-136, and 138-139 thus: ?That the precise nature or basis of
4
the Plaintiff?s/Respondents claim for declaration of Customary right of occupancy cannot be ascertained either from his particulars of claim or from his evidence before the trial Court?The Plaintiff?s elder brother Richard, who is said to reside at home and even the alleged owner of the parcels of land (Lazarus Njoku) who is said to reside in Ondo State did not lend any form of support or at least show any interest in the proceedings. The Plaintiff/Respondent, for reasons best known to him did not bother to call any of them to testify at the trial in support of his claims.The Plaintiff/Respondent at one breathe stated that he and his brothers jointly own these parcels of land, but in another breathe he turned round to state one Lazarus Njoku who resides in Ondo State is the owner of the lands but that the said Lazarus handed the lands to Plaintiff?s father who is now late before leaving for Ondo in 1970?The trial Court failed to see the damaging contradiction in the Plaintiff?s assertion that he owns the lands jointly with his brothers but only to later turn round to claim that the 14 parcels of land belong to another person
5
(Lazarus Njoku)? The trial Court also closed it eyes and ears to the fact that the Plaintiff failed to even say a word as to how lands which were supposed to be in his possession or his late?s father?s possession came into the Defendant?s possession.? He contended that by the observations, the Court below is simply stating that the Appellant?s predecessor?s title i.e. his father, Godwin Anumudu?s title is uncertain, that he had no locus to institute the action either in his name or in a representative capacity, and that the Appellant did not establish how possession of the lands transferred from him to the defendant.
Learned Counsel submitted that the Plaintiff, via P.W.1, produced evidence of traditional history of the lands from the original founder, Ohajianya up to Lazarus Njoku and how the 14 parcels of lands devolved on the Plaintiff from Lazarus Njoku. He also referred to the evidence of D.W.1 on 11/4/2006 that the Plaintiffs? father i.e. Godwin Anumudu, aka ?Kamalu?, died 10 years ago, that is, from the date of the evidence i.e. 1996, and then stressed that from 1970 up to 1996 when
6
he died, he had these properties and ?Ofo? which Lazarus handed over to him in 1970. He explained that these are farmlands meaning that when Godwin Anumudu aka ?Kamalu? died in 1996, his successors including the Plaintiff/Appellant stepped into his shoes by operation of law. He referred to the cases of L.S.B.P. Corp vs. PT (NIG) LTD (2012) VOL.214 LRCN page 144 ratio 4 (SC); Adewole vs. Dada (2003) 4 NWLR Part 810 PG 369 where the Supreme Court held that a successor is one who takes the place that another has left and sustains the like part or character, one who takes the place of another by succession, and that, possession of land of a predecessor-in-title is in law deemed to be continued by his successor. Learned Counsel referred to the evidence of the Defendant as D.W.2 where he revealed that he was not in possession of the lands between 1958 and 1980 as he was away in Ghana within the period and he could not tell who on his side was in possession at that time whereas the Plaintiff clearly established that as far back as 1970, his father was handed over these lands by the rightful owner, Lazarus Njoku. He then argued that by the
7
scenario, D.W.1 who claimed to be in current possession of the lands has enormous burden to prove how he came into possession of the same. Learned Counsel referred to the lower Court?s comment that it needed to be shown the nature of right the Plaintiff?s father acquired by the said handing over i.e. whether it was an outright gift, customary grant, outright sale or pledge, and then submitted that a bare grant or possession is sufficient for a person or his successor to maintain a protective suit against any other as a trustee of such property by reason of consequent resulting trust and the grant which took place in 1970. He made reference to the cases of Nsirem vs. Nwakerendu (1955) 15 WACA 71 at 72; Nwankwo vs. Jubril (2012) ALL FWLR Part 646 page 483 at 510; and Ezeudu vs. Obiagwu (1986) 2 NWLR Part 409 page 539 ratio 2, and stated that in law, for the purposes of suing to protect land/property, ownership, in that circumstance, has a wide meaning. He said that the term ?owner? is loosely used in West Africa. Sometimes it denotes what is in effect absolute ownership; at other times it is used in a con which indicates that the reference
8
is only to right of occupation. He further explained that ?right of occupancy? has been interpreted to mean ?the right of a person or community lawfully using or occupying land in accordance with customary law?. He cited the case of Okechukwu vs. Okafor (1961) All NLR Part IV page 683 where it was held that the right of a person farming on land to use or hold the same for farming until such time as the owner is ready to to make use of the land, is a grant of title by native law and custom to the person granted the right to farm on it. Learned Counsel equally invoked the provision of Section 50(1) of the Land Use Act, 1978 which provides that what entitles a person to right of occupancy as against another is the act of occupation or use of land or bare possession, and argued that that includes lawful grant of land which was the effect of the said ?handing over? of the lands in dispute to the Plaintiff?s predecessors-in-title in 1970. He stated that Court below recognised the term ?customary grant? but failed to apply the same to the instant case. He contended that the Plaintiff as P.W.1 did not need to use the
9
phrase ?customary grant? and that his expression or phrase ?handing over? conveyed the same meaning in the circumstances of his evidence because where it said that Mr. A handed over his business to Mr. B, it follows that Mr. B should be in possession of the business and run it as a trustee or grantee until Mr. A returns. He contended that to require a further proof that the land is to be held in any other way other than the existing state of thing at the time of handing over as a trustee or grantee is to do violence to the circumstances of handing over. He said that D.W.1 confirmed the use of the lands for farming while P.W.1 via Exhibit A listed his lands which correspond with his claims. He then cited Mozie vs. Mbamalu (2006) 15 NWLR Part 1003 page 466 at 493 and Balarabe vs. Nadabo (2012) ALL FWLR Part 646 page 516 at 541 where it was held that a member of a family has the capacity to sue to protect family property and any member of the family whose interest is threatened by the wrongful alienation or wrongful interference with the family property can sue to protect his interest whether with the consent or without the consent of the
10
other members of the family. And the fact the plaintiff may be a younger member of the family becomes in such circumstance immaterial. Learned Counsel then submitted that the holding of the Court below that the action was vitiated because no other members of the Plaintiff?s family showed interest or testified in the case is erroneous under customary law. He further submitted that where evidence and proceedings show a representative action, the Courts are enjoined to treat the same as such. He argued that the evidence of P.W.1 shows that he was prosecuting the case on behalf of himself and his brothers whose names were given as Luke and Christopher. He referred to the evidence of D.W.1 in support. On the remark that the Appellant sought for declaration of title in respect of lands he conceded belonged to Lazarus Njoku who was residing at Ondo, learned Counsel stated there was a transmission of interest by grant from Lazarus to the Plaintiff?s father and that a suit for declaration of title is determined on the basis of who proves a better title as between the parties before the Court and the Court is concerned with the relative strengths of the titles
11
proved by adverse parties in the litigation and not the titles of those not before the Court although in the instant case the interest of Lazarus Njoku is subsumed in that of the Plaintiff.
On the other hand, learned Counsel argued that a representative suit on behalf of Lazarus Njoku is equally sustainable on the evidence because by the handing over, Godwin Anumudu qualified as a trustee of the property and upon his death, the plaintiff as his son is entitled to take up the resulting or constructive trust to sue meddlesome interlopers in a representative capacity on trust for Lazarus Njoku who was still away in Ondo at the time of the suit. It was further argued that even if the Plaintiff did not emphatically state that he cultivated those lands as long as there was evidence of handing over or grant from Lazarus to Godwin Anumudu in 1970 and Godwin died in 1996, the possession in Godwin Anumudu which started in 1970 continued up to 1996 and the same automatically continued by operation of the law of succession to the Plaintiff whether or not there was evidence that Godwin Anumudu or Plaintiff ever set his feet on the land. He relied on Akinyemi vs. Ojo
12
(2011) All FWLR Part 588 page 984 at 995 and submitted that the suit was properly constituted.
Submitting in respect of issue No. 2, it was argued the Court below had no competence to deal with the finding of the trial Customary Court on possession since it expunged the Respondent?s issue No. 2 that dealt with the issue of possession. Relying on the Supreme Court decision in Alli vs. Alesinloye (2000) FWLR Part 15 page 2610, learned Counsel submitted it was wrong of the Court below to reverse the finding of the trial on possession and substituted its own finding and that an appellate Court cannot base any decision on an issue and arguments not properly before it. He further stated that findings of fact are outside the appellate jurisdiction of the Court below as per Section 282 (1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. Even where an appellate Court has power to review a finding of fact on ground of it being perverse, there must be a specific ground of appeal challenging that finding sought to be reviewed and not otherwise. It was contended that there was no ground of appeal at the Court below on the issue of wrong finding on
13
possession and the same was acknowledged by the Court below in its holding contained in page 133 of the record that issue No. 2 as formulated is neither related to nor was it distilled from any ground of appeal.
?
It was however argued that Ohajianyi founded the lands. It then devolved on Kabima his son. From Kabima to Jurisima, and after Jurusima, his two sons Nwagbara and Amushienwa divided the lands, (14 in number) into two, that is to say, 7 each. Then after Nwagbara and Amushienwa, their sons Njoku from the side of Nwagbara and Akoduthe son of Amushienwa held the 14 lands, 7 each person. After Njoku and Akodu, Lazarus Njoku son of Njoku inherited the 14 lands because his uncle died childless. It was the same Lazarus Njoku, who, before he left for Ondo in 1970, handed these 14 parcels of land to Godwin Anumudu. When Godwin Anumudu died, his sons, Cyprian (Plaintiff) and Christopher succeeded him. He stated that there was no evidence on record as to how Godwin Anumudu is connected with Lazarus Njoku by blood relationship. Learned Counsel submitted that it was the act of handing over of the said lands by Lazarus Njoku to Godwin Anumudu that formed the
14
basis of the Appellant?s possession and that the handing over means the handing over of the right of possession. He argued that ?handing over? created title of customary grant under customary law. He once again relied on Carrena vs. Akinlase (2008) 14 NWLR Part 1107 page 262 at 281-282 and Okene vs. Orianwo (1998) 9 NWLR Part 566 page 408 and reiterated that the law ascribes possession to the party with better title and once issue of title is resolved in favour of a party, the other party if he is in possession of the land becomes a trespasser while the party with title is deemed to be in possession. He submitted that Godwin Anumudu lawfully possessed the lands in 1970 when they were handed over to him in 1970 which he held until 1996, a period of 26 years when he died and his successors automatically acquired the right to possession of the same. He further referred to the evidence of handing over, Exhibits A and B and repeated that it was wrong for the Court below to have reversed the finding of the trial Court.
Then on the reversal of the decision over the nativity of the Respondent,he referenced the cases of Nwabude vs. Ugodu (2011) ALL
15
FWLR Part 604 page 26 ratio 9; Oduaran vs. Asarah (1972) I ALL NLR (Part 2) page 137; Okonkwo vs. Ogbogu (1996) 4 SCNJ 190 and submitted that a finding that the defendant does not hail from Umueze and particularly Plaintiff?s family is bound to strengthen the Plaintiff?s declaration of title as against the Defendant who has no root at Umueze and is contesting ownership of lands at Umueze rooting same on traditional history of deforestation and inheritance. He referred to the finding of the trial Court that the defendant is not from the land-owning family of Umueze but migrated (through his forefather) from Abo Uzoagba, the evidence of P.W.1, admission of D.W.1 of the existence of various Court judgments branding him a stranger at Umueze i.e. Exhibits B and C, Exhibits A, B and C and submitted that in the light of the decision in Egbaran vs. Akpotor (1997) 7 NWLR Part 514 page 559 both Exhibits B and C which are Court judgments to prove that the defendant was a stranger at Umueze, are relevant and material and where they are not relied upon as an estoppel or res judicatory, it is not necessary to plead them. Such a judgment can be relied upon to disprove an
16
issue of title. He said that Exhibits B and C were tendered to disprove the defendant?s contention that he was an indigene of Umueze and particularly of Plaintiff?s family. He further said it was wrong for the Court below to reverse the finding of the trial Court that the defendant was a stranger at the community of Umueze Uzoagba where the lands are situated. He made reference to the cases of Alli vs. Alesinloye (2008) 13 NWLR Part 1105 page 445 ratio 5; Nwaigwe vs. Okere (2008) 13 NWLR Part 1105 page 445 ratio 5; Saidi vs. Ibude (2011) ALL FWLR Part 571 page 1614 at 1629; Sule vs. Hamidu (1988) 4 NWLR Part 90 page 516 ratio 2; Ebevuhe vs. Ukpakara (1996) 7 NWLR Part 460 page 254 at 276; Iyaji vs. Eyigebe (1987) 3 NWLR Part 61 page 523 ratio 19; Okene vs. Orianwu (1998) 9 NWLR Part 566 page 408 ratio 22; Ukeje vs. Ukeje (2014) ALL FWLR Part 730 page 1323 at 1337; Udo vs. Eshiet (1994) 8 NWLR Part 363 page 483; Gaji vs. Paye (2003) 8 NWLR Part 823 ratio 6; Obiazikwor vs. Obiazikwor (2007) ALL FWLR Part 371 page 1602 ratio 8 and stated that what the appellate Court is required to do is to determine whether the decision of the trial Court was right and not
17
whether the reasons were right.
On issue No. 3, learned Counsel referred this Court to pages 34, 35, 138, 139, 86, 134 and 137 of the record of appeal and stressed that the Plaintiff?s case was based on grant and traditional history. He then recapitulated the Appellant?s case and submitted that in law, when a person claims land by virtue of grant to him or his predecessors?-in-title and the title of such grantor is not accepted by the adverse party, the claimant has the onus to prove the title of his grantor. He cited Uche vs. Eke (1998) 9 NWLR Part 564 ratio 4; Ugoji vs. Onukogu (2005) ALL FWLR Part 271 page 66 and Alli vs. Alesinloye (supra) in support. He explained that it was in that light the Appellant led the evidence of traditional history of Lazarus Njoku, the grantor of the land to his (Plaintiff?s) father. He said that the trial Court believed the said evidence of traditional history of Lazarus Njoku and the evidence on grant and at that point the issue of possession and the question whether the defendant was a stranger or not do not arise because the primary duty of the plaintiff who claims through grant and traditional
18
history is to prove the grant and the traditional history of his grantor first and foremost. He further pointed out that the holding of the trial Customary Court that the Plaintiff established the traditional history and grant was not upturned by the Court below and that the fact that there is no appeal to this Court on that issue means that it cannot be disturbed by any appellate Court. He then relied on the decisions in Runsewe vs. Odutola (1996) 4 NWLR Part 441 page 143 at 154, 159,160; Alakija vs. Abdulai (1998) 6 NWLR Part 552 page I ratio 6 and Efetiroje vs. Okalefe (1991) 7 SCNJ (Part 1) page 85 and argued that the onus shifted to the Defendant to disprove the Plaintiff?s case as he rendered a rival traditional history inclusive of the unsettling bogus fact that the 14 parcels of lands allegedly deforested by Emetuche was held by Emetuche?s grandfather, Ohajianya. He then queried the possibility of a grandson deforesting land for his father and or his grandfather. He further stated there was no explanation on the state of the lands between 1958 and 1980 when the Defendant was away in Ghana thereby leaving a yawning gap in the traditional history
19
and his alleged possession. He then submitted that the Court below was wrong to hold otherwise. He further relied on Carrena vs. Akinlase (2008) 14 NWLR Part 1107 page 262 ratio 7; Akinyemi vs. Ojo (2011) ALL FWLR Part 15 page 2610 ratio 11; Ijade vs. Ogunyemi (1996) 9 NWLR Part 470 page 17 at 30; Akunyili vs. Ejidike (1996) 6 NWLR Part 449 page 381 ratio 3; Garba vs. Yahaya (2007) 3 NWLR Part 1021 page 390; Ikpang vs. Edoho (1970) 2 LRN 29 at 35?36 and Onobruchere vs. Esegine (1986) 1 NWLR Part 19 page 799 ratio 5 and submitted that once the trial Court was satisfied with the traditional history of the Plaintiff and was dissatisfied with that of the Defendant, possession of the 14 parcels of land is automatically ascribed to the Plaintiff as he no longer has the need to prove the same. The onus was on the Defendant, therefore, the lower Court was wrong when it insisted that the onus of proving possession in the circumstances still lay on the Plaintiff. He however argued that even if the Defendant?s possession was proved, it could not have overridden the Plaintiff who has established his title by traditional evidence and grant. He further pointed out
20
that the the question whether the Defendant was a stranger or not did not affect the duty on the Plaintiff to prove his case by grant and traditional evidence of his grant or within the rule. He then urged this Court to allow this appeal.
?
In respect of issue No. 1, the Respondent had argued that P.W.1?s evidence is bereft of the nature and basis of the handover of the property in question and ?Ofo by Lazarus Nwaneku Njoku to his (Appellant?s) late father, (Godwin Anumudu) before he left for Ondo in 1970, and the witnesses who witnessed the said handover ceremony. It was further argued that the failure of the Appellant to call the said Lazarus Njoku who is alive, as a witness, and, did not bother to explain his absence, is fatal to his case particularly when it is on record that the Respondent (Defendant) has been in possession of the parcels of land in dispute, farmed and built houses on part of the land. He then queried ?if the lands in dispute were actually handed over to the Appellant?s father by Lazarus Njoku, how did the Respondent come into possession of the same. He said that that was not explained by the
21
Appellant in his evidence. Counsel further said that the Appellant?s contention that when land is handed over for an indefinite period, it becomes a grant, is not applicable in the circumstances of this case because the purported handover was not proved and the same did not exist and never happened. The Appellant was not in possession as at the time the suit was filed because a house belonging to the Respondent?s son was already standing on the land in dispute in 2006. He stated that the Appellant did not prove acts of possession on his part and could not either explain the possession by the Respondent. He also argued that the issue of a successor raised by the Appellant cannot assist his case as neither him nor his late father can, under customary law, succeed Lazarus Njoku who is alive and did not lead evidence. It rather strengthened the Respondent?s case as he is in possession and has performed acts supporting his claim for title in the light of his evidence of traditional history from the founder of the land to himself. He also pointed out that the Appellant?s contention that the Respondent was not in Nigeria between 1958 and 1960
22
and therefore not in possession at that material time is misleading since one can be in possession by proxy. He stressed that the Respondent did not say he was not in possession within that period. He contended that the Appellant did not lead evidence proving any of the ways to be entitled to the grant of Customary Right of Occupancy. He said that the Appellant merely alleged that lands were handed over to his father by one Lazarus Njoku, who is still alive that resides in Ondo State but did not mention anybody who was present at the said handover. He did not also bring the said Lazarus Njoku to give evidence and did not bother to explain his absence to the Court. He relied on the Supreme Court?s decision in Obueke vs. Nnamchi (2012) SCJL Vol. 6 page 472 that highlighted the party?s inability to call witnesses in a trial, two elders who witnessed the land transaction and did not put up any explanation for their absence. He also made reference to this Court?s decision in Ejiniyi vs. Adio (1993) 7 NWLR Part 305 page 320 at 333 in which was recapped,the principle that in order to transfer an absolute title under native law and custom, it is
23
necessary that such a sale should be concluded in the presence of witnesses who saw the actual handing over of the property. Further reference was made to the case of Olowoake vs. Salawu (2000) 11 NWLR Part 677 page 127 which captured the position of the law to transfer absolute title under customary law, that is to say, it ought to be pleaded and proved that the transfer was concluded in the presence of witnesses and names of those witnesses should also be pleaded as well as the fact that they witnessed the actual delivery or handing over of the land to the purchaser, and that is if one is basing his title to land on a grant, the grantor or his successor-in-title must be called to prove his root of title, relying on Ofume vs. Ngbeke (1994) 4 NWLR Part 341 page 746 at 755. It was further argued that the purported handing over was not substantiated at all and there is no proof of possession by the Appellant, therefore, the case of Nwankwo vs. Jubril (supra) cited by the Appellant is not applicable.
?
Arguing in respect of issue No 2, it was submitted that the decision of the Court below on possession and nativity of the Respondent before it was based on the
24
present Respondent?s then Appellant?s issues 3 and 4 and not his then issue 2 that was struck out and they were distilled from grounds B and C. He referred to the remarks of the Court below at pages 136-137, 137-139 of the record of appeal where the issues of nativity and possession were resolved by the Court below under issue 4 and then stated that the cases cited by the Appellant are inapplicable since the issue of nativity and possession are issues of customary law that needed to be proved and the Respondent called a witness to testify as to how a person becomes a native. He argued that the findings of facts reversed by the Court below were unsubstantially supported by any evidence. He stated that by the record of appeal, the Respondent has been and is still in possession of the subject matter as at the time the trial Court delivered its judgment and for the trial Court to have held that the Appellant is in possession is perverse. He emphasized that there was no evidence of acts of possession yet the trial Court held that the Appellant is in possession. He cited the cases of Ayuya vs. Yonrin (2011) All FWLR Part 583 page 1842 at 1861; Momoh vs. Umoru
25
(2011) All FWLR Part 588 page 797 at 816, etc, and elaborated the Respondent?s arguments in this respect and then urged that this issue be resolved in favour of the Respondent.
With respect to issue No. 3, learned Counsel referred to the decision in Orunengimo vs. Egebe (2008) All FWLR Part 400 page 655 at 676 wherein it was equally expressed that to transfer an absolute title under customary law, it ought to be pleaded and proved by evidence that the sale was concluded in the presence of witnesses and the names of those witnesses should also be pleaded as the fact that the actual delivery or handing over of the land to the purchaser. He submitted that the Court was right to hold that the historical evidenced of traditional history/grant relied upon by the Appellant was not proved since the Appellant did not mention anybody who witnessed the purported handover. He submitted that the Appellant failed woefully to establish title to the lands in dispute and as such no duty shifted to the Respondent. He further submitted that the Defendant had no duty to explain the the strange gap between 1958 and 1980 regarding his possession as he had no claim before
26
the trial Court and that the Plaintiff can only succeed on the strength of his case. He further stressed that proving the social status or circumstances of birth of the defendant by the plaintiff is not one of the ways of proving ownership of land known to law. He submitted that trying to dispossess the Respondent without proof of title by the Appellant will contravene the decision in Atanda vs. Iliasu (supra). He referred to the provisions of Sections 4 and 43 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and urged this Court to dismiss the appeal and affirm the judgment of the Court below.
The three issues projected by the Appellant are interrelated and as such should be considered together. The summation of the Appellant?s issues is that the Court below was terribly wrong in its holding, setting aside the findings of the trial Customary Court and substituting the same with its views. It found as restated by the Appellant that the precise nature or basis of the Plaintiff?s/Respondents claim for declaration of Customary right of occupancy cannot be ascertained either from his particulars of claim or from his evidence before the trial
27
Court The Plaintiffs elder brother Richard, who is said to reside at home and even the alleged owner of the parcels of land (Lazarus Njoku) who is said to reside in Ondo State did not lend any form of support or at least show any interest in the proceedings. The Plaintiff/Respondent, for reasons best known to him did not bother to call any of them to testify at the trial in support of his claims. The Plaintiff/Respondent at one breathe stated that he and his brothers jointly own these parcels of land, but in another breathe he turned round to state one Lazarus Njoku who resides in Ondo State is the owner of the lands but that the said Lazarus handed the lands to Plaintiff?s father who is now late before leaving for Ondo in 1970? The trial Court failed to see the damaging contradiction in the Plaintiff?s assertion that he owns the lands jointly with his brothers but only to later turn round to claim that the 14 parcels of land belong to another person (Lazarus Njoku)? The trial Court also closed it eyes and ears to the fact that the Plaintiff failed to even say a word as to how lands which were supposed to be in his
28
possession or his late?s father?s possession came into the Defendant?s possession.? I completely agree with the decision of the Court below that the form of customary acquisition of the land by the Appellant?s late father was imprecise and not thoroughly explained by the Appellant.The Appellant claimed that the said 14 pieces of land were handed over to his late father by one Lazarus Njoku. According to Oxford Advance Learner?s Dictionary, 11th Edition, the word handover connotesthe act of giving a person or thing to somebody in authority?.
Dictionary.com defines it as ?the act of relinquishing property, authority, etc?. It is also synonymous with the words transfer, cede, entrust, give up, etc. In Folarin vs. Durojaiye (1988) 1 NWLR Part 70 page 351, the Supreme Court, per Obaseki, J.S.C., in considering the conditions for a valid transfer of legal title, held that: “In order to transfer legal title under English Law by purchase, there must be a valid sale, payment of money accompanied by acknowledgment of receipt and execution of a deed of conveyance in favour of
29
the purchaser. See Erinoso v. Owokoniran (supra) by Idigbe, JSC. When he, delivering the judgment of the Supreme Court said, at p. 483: “Was it a sale under native law and custom or under English law? In order to transfer an absolute title under native law and custom, it is necessary that such a sale should be concluded in the presence of witnesses “who saw the actual handing over” of the property from Fafunwa branch of the family to Oladiran (see Cole v. Folami 1 FSC 66). In order to transfer the legal title under “English Law” a deed of conveyance in respect of the same should be executed in favour of Oladiran by Fafunwa branch of the Ojomo Eyisha family; if the sale under “English Law” was imperfect then, on the evidence that Oladiran bought the land and went into possession, she acquired merely an equitable interest in the land.” Also, in the case of Lagos State Bulk Purchase Corporation vs. Purification Techniques (Nig.) Ltd. (2013) 7 NWLR Part 1352 page 82, the Supreme Court, per Muhammad, J.S.C., expressed that:”The word ‘transfer’ in law, is wide, having a lot of variables: it can represent the way in which the title to property is conveyed from one
30
person to another. It can be the sale and every other method, direct or indirect, of disposing of or parting with property or with an interest therein, or with the possession thereof, or of fixing a lien upon property or upon an interest therein, absolutely or conditionally, voluntarily or involuntarily, by or without judicial proceedings, as a conveyance, sale, payment, pledge, mortgage lien, encumbrance, gift, security or otherwise. It can even include the act of giving property by will. (See Blacks Law Dictionary, Sixth edition, page 1497).” By the aforementioned decisions, it is unequivocal that ?handing over? of a piece or parcels of land by one person to the other, as in the instant appeal, about 14 pieces of land for that matter, cannot invariably be carried out without an incident of customary acquisition or existence of a condition or an overt act on the part of the recipient. There are many ways an interest in land can be acquired under the native law and custom of a community. In this respect, it is prudent that they be taken cognisance of by this Court to ascertain whether mere handing over of a piece of land by an owner of land to another
31
without any form of understanding existing between the parties, is one of the modes of acquisition fully recognised under the customary laws. In an unreported decision of this Court in CA/OW/280/2011- Between: Okechukwu Onuoha and Obiageri Onuoha delivered on the 18th February, 2019, it was held that the five methods by which title to land can be proved in the Court of law have nothing to do with the mode of acquisition of title to land which may be by:
(a) First settlement on the land and deforestation of the virgin land;
(b) Conquest during tribal wars;
(c) Gift,
(d) Grant – customary
(e) Sale,
(f) Inheritance, etc, etc.
..It is well established that before a plaintiff can succeed in a claim for declaration of title to land, the Court must be satisfied as to the precise nature of the title he claims, that is to say, whether it is title by virtue of original ownership, customary grant, conveyance, sale under customary law, long possession or otherwise and there must be evidence establishing the title of the nature claimed. It is evident in the pleading of the Appellant that he is claiming those properties via customary grant of
32
land inter vivos. The salient question is, “How does he establish such gifts of lands inter vivos under customary law? To prove gift of land inter vivos, there must be evidence of actual handing over of the land and acceptance thereof in the presence of witnesses. See Ayinke v. Ibidunni (1959) 4 FSC 280 at 282 where Ademola, C.J.F., observed that disposition of properties could be made under native law and custom by a gift followed by a transfer of the property, or a declaration by a man on his death bed in the presence of witnesses. It is pertinent to note that irrespective of the document tendered by the Appellant, his only means of acquisition of the said property was by customary grant, and this he has to prove. I must observe that the Court below was engulfed by the document tendered by the Appellant in proof of the customary gift inter vivos claimed by him. He pleaded ownership by customary gift inter vivos, and that was what he was expected to prove and nothing more. Whether the document referred to customary gift or not, he pleaded customary gift. It is trite law that in every litigation in the High Court where tenets of customary law and statutes are
33
applied, native law must be proved. Merely asserting that ‘it is under native law and custom’ is not prima facie the native law and custom. See Ogunleye v Oni (1990) 2 NWLR Part 135 page 745, per Belgore, J.S.C. (As he then was). Since he based his claim under the customary law, it is clear that customary law requires no writing for the transfer or gift, whether by way of sale or by way of gift. He is required to prove the actual handing over of the land to the donee in the presence of witnesses and an acceptance by him of the gift. “It is an elementary principle of law and as had been held in a plethora of authorities that sale, transfer, grant or gift of land under native/customary law is constituted by the handing over of the land so transferred in the presence of witnesses. The presence of witnesses is not only of evidential value, it is also a necessary part of the transaction.This is so because writing is foreign to native customary law and custom. The presence of witnesses gives the transaction not only solemnity but also validity, See Kamalu vs. Ojoh (2000) 11 NWLR (Part 679) P.505 at 517 Paras D-E, Cole vs. Folami (1956) 1. F.S.C 66 @ 68,
34
Ajayi v.Olanrewaju (1969) 1 All NLR 382 @ 387, Orun-nengimo V. Egebe (2008) 9 S.C.L.R (ph.7) pg. 82 @ 102.” See Akinyele & ors vs. Adebayo (2015) LPELR-CA/AK/114/2012 per Denton West, J.C.A.?
It should be noted that this was an action commenced before the Customary Court of Imo of Nigeria State sitting in Eziama, Ikeduru L. G. A., therefore the rules of pleadings and the evidential Laws do not strictly apply to cases before such Courts. Even though the Supreme Court had stressed in an avalanche of cases that Area or Customary Courts are to be guided and not be strictly bound by the provisions of the Evidence Act, there is still a task on the Plaintiffs before such Customary Courts who assert that they are entitled to the Customary Right of Occupancy over the piece and parcel of being claimed by them, to convince the Court on the existence of such facts. Aka?ahs, J.S.C., in Arum vs. Nwobodo (2013) LPELR-20390(SC) reiterated that the proof of such facts ultimately determines the proof of evidence in any litigation. He referred to Chukwuogor vs. Obuora (1987) 3 NWLR Part 61 page 454 at 457 where Oputa, J.S.C., opined that evidence, in its broad sense,
35
encompasses and includes the means employed for the purpose of proving a disputed fact. Aka?ahs, J.S.C., expressed thus: ?This Court has long recognised the fact that what matters in trials in the Native Courts such as Area or Customary Courts is the substance and not the form. The decisions of such Courts are to be accorded respect by appellate Courts provided that nothing is done therein which is contrary either to any express requirements of the law or to the principles of natural justice. Being mindful of the detailed exposition of the apex Court position in this regard, I would now scrutinize all that transpired in the case.
The Appellant as P.W.1, testified that his grandfather brought the grandfather of the Defendant into their family. He said the land dispute involves about 14 parcels of land which he jointly owned with his brothers. He narrated that the original owner of the 14 parcels of land was Ohajianya who had four sons namely, Odigara, Kabime, Ogii and Oparaeke. He said that the 14 parcels of land were the share of Kabime who was the first son of Ohajianya and held the ?Ofo? of Ohajianya. Kabime had two sons namely
36
Jurusima and Otuonye and upon the death of Kabime, the ?Ofo? devolved on Jurusima. Also the 14 parcels of land were inherited by him. Jurusima had two sons namely Nwagbara and Amushienwa. They shared their father?s estate into two with each having seven plots of land. Nwagbara had only one son named Njoku. Akodu was the son Amushienwa. Njoku had a son named Lazarus Nwaneku Njoku. However, Akodu died childless and, Lazarus Nwaneku Njoku then inherited Akodu?s share, meaning that the 14 parcels of land then devolved on Lazarus whom he said was residing in Ondo as at the time he instituted the action. He further explained that before Lazarus left for Ondo in 1970, he handed those properties and ?Ofo? to his (Appellant?s) father, (Godwin Anumudu). Even though he claimed that his father came from the lineage of Otuonye, the brother of Jurusima, there was never a time he said that Otuonye inherited part of the said 14 parcels of land. According to him, it was Jurusima who inherited both the ?Ofo? and the said 14 parcels of land. He did not explain the circumstances or conditions under which the said Lazarus Njoku
37
handed over the said 14 parcels of land to his late father, whether it was as a result of sale, transfer, grant, gift of the land under customary law or under a trust i.e. that they were placed under the care of his late father in the form of trust.Exhibit C was in respect of the proceeding in suit No. CC/EZ/1K/221/87, between the Ekezie family and the defendant i.e the Respondent, where he was challenged as a stranger in the community.He said that the land, the subject matter of Exhibit C is Uhu Achara, one of the pieces of land for which he sued but the particular portion for which he, the Appellant, sued is different from the subject matter of Exhibit C.
It is of great significance that the Appellant never mentioned in his evidence the basis for the handing of the said 14 parcels of land by Lazarus Njoku to his late father, his predecessor-in-title. The Appellant also failed to state that the said lands were handed over to his late father in the presence of any person. Not a single person was mentioned by him as a witness to the alleged handing over of the said 14 parcels of land by the said Lazarus Njoku whom he stated was still alive and living in
38
Ondo State as at the time of institution of the suit by him,and,his testimony before the trial Customary Court. As stated above, it is an elementary principle of law that sale, transfer, grant or gift of land under native or customary law is constituted by the handing over of the land so transferred in the presence of witnesses. The presence of witnesses is not only of evidential value, it is also a necessary part of the transaction. This is so because writing is foreign to native customary law and custom. The presence of witnesses gives the transaction not only solemnity but also validity. In the instant appeal there was no evidence of the said handover having taken place in the presence of any witnesses and none was even called in proof of the same. Furthermore, there was no proof of the size or dimension of the said 14 parcels of land. He merely stated without more that ?there are 14 parcels of land involved. The parcels of land situate in Umueze.? Also, as was observed by the Court below, the said Lazarus Njoku who allegedly handed over the said pieces of land under whatever guise was not called as a witness by the Appellant to assist in
39
unraveling the circumstances surrounding the alleged handover of his lands to the father of the Appellant. The Appellant is claiming ownership through his late father and the law requires him to prove the title of his later father, i.e. his predecessor-in-title. Appellant had the onus of proving the basis of the alleged handover of the said 14 pieces of land by Lazarus Njoku to his late father but that he completely failed to discharge, therefore, the Court below was right in its observation that the trial Customary Court blundered in its findings and erroneously awarded the Appellant the reliefs he sought without adequate proof. It is also right in its remark that the precise nature or basis of the Plaintiff?s/Respondent?s claim for declaration of Customary Right of Occupancy cannot be ascertained either from his particulars of claim or from his evidence before the trial Court. The main requirements for a valid transfer or handover of land under customary law were not satisfied by the Appellant, in consequence thereto, the trial Court was right in setting aside the judgment of the trial Customary Court and dismissing the Appellant’s claim for want
40
of proof.
The Appellant had contended that he adduced traditional history evidence before the trial Customary Court but it needs be pointed out that that evidence is bereft of how the land traditionally devolved on the Appellant?s late father from the lineage of Jurusima, the ancestor of the said Lazarus Njoku. He woefully failed to establish the linkage and the very foundation of his case, that is, the reason for the said handover. He also miscalculated the risk of not providing the said Lazarus Njoku to straighten out his case. He wholly failed to explain the circumstances prompting the alleged handover. The Appellant?s learned Counsel seriously groped for viable reasons by whimsically arguing that a trust was equally created by the handover. He unimaginably argued that ?a representative suit on behalf of Lazarus Njoku is equally sustainable on the evidence even if the Court holds that there was no grant to Godwin Anumudu, because by handing over, Godwin Anumudu qualified as a trustee of the property and upon his death, the plaintiff as his son is entitled to take up the resulting trust or constructive trust to sue meddlesome
41
interlopers in a representative capacity on trust for Lazarus Njoku who was still away in Ondo at the time of the suit. Sadly, that was not the case of the Appellant at the trial Customary Court, who unmistakably testified that he owned the 14 parcels of land jointly with his brothers. Furthermore, the Appellant made a mountain out of a molehill by dwelling hugely on the alleged finding of the trial Customary Court on the supposed nativity of the Respondent which to my mind has no bearing whatsoever on the burden placed on the Appellant to prove his entitlement to the declaratory relief sought by him. He had already told the trial Customary Court that his grandfather brought the grandfather of the defendant into their family. He did not say that he was brought into the family as a slave. It is interesting to note that the Appellant was not his grandfather who allegedly brought the grandfather of the Respondent into their family. There was no evidence as to the circumstances surrounding his being brought into their family by the grandfather of the Appellant. Even at that, the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria as amended, which this Court is
42
entitled to take cognisance or judicial notice of under the Evidence Act, has taken care of such circumstance by its Section 42(1) and (2) which endowed the citizens of this country with the right to freedom from discrimination. Subsection 2 provides that no citizen of Nigeria shall be subjected to any disability or deprivation merely by reason of the circumstances of his birth. It is well established law that in an action for declaration of title, the plaintiff must succeed on the strength of his case and not on the weakness of the defendants. See Melifonwu vs. Egbuji (1982) 9 SC 145; Atuanya v. Onyejekwe (1975) 3 SC 161; Elias v. Omo-Bare (1982) 5 SC 25. The onus in a claim for declaration of title is on the party who seeks the declaration. This he can do, by satisfying any of the five ways of proof of title to land prescribed by this Court in Idundun v. Okumagba (1976) 9-10 SC 227. It is invariably necessary where plaintiff pleads and traces his root of title to a particular family or person and as to how the title vested in him, he must establish that title by credible evidence. See Sunday Temile & ors vs. Jemide Ebigbeyi Awani (supra); Ndukwe vs. Acha (1998) 6 NWLR
43
Part 552 page 25; Mogaji vs. Cadbury (Nig) Ltd (1985) 2 NWLR Part 7 page 393. It is also settled that the plaintiff in an action for declaration of title is required to satisfy the Court by evidence and not by admission in the pleadings of the defendant of his right to the declaration he claims. See Bello vs. Eweka (1981) 1 SC 101. This is because the grant of a declaration by the Court is discretionary. See Kodilinye vs. Odu (1935) 2 WACA 336; Akinola & Ors vs. Oluwo & Ors (1962) WNLR 133, (1962) 1 SCNLR 352. Where family land is involved under customary land tenure a plaintiff in order to establish his title to the land must trace his title to the family. See Thomas vs. Preston Holder (1946) 12 WACA 78; Lion Buildings Ltd vs. Shadipe (1976) 12 SC 135. There is no doubt that an owner of land under native law and custom can transfer his absolute interest in the land to another and grant exclusive possession. See Aboderin v. Morankinyo (1968). Unfortunately, in the instant appeal, the Appellant was unable to establish the the mode of acquisition of the said 14 parcels of land by his late father from the said Lazarus Njoku, the precise sizes and dimensions of the said 14
44
parcels of land and,his entitlement thereto.
Accordingly, there is no merit in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.
ITA GEORGE MBABA, J.C.A.: I agree.
IBRAHIM ALI ANDENYANGTSO, J.C.A.: I agree.
45
Appearances:
O.C. Ewurum, Esq.For Appellant(s)
C.C. Onyekanne, Esq.For Respondent(s)
Appearances
O.C. Ewurum, Esq.For Appellant
AND
C.C. Onyekanne, Esq.For Respondent
