MAI UNGUWA LAWAL BALA v. LIYAFA PALACE & ORS
(2018)LCN/12130(CA)
In The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
On Friday, the 9th day of November, 2018
CA/K/378/2014
RATIO
EVIDENCE: PROOF OF TITLE TO LAND
“It is settled law that the five ways of proof of land are the following:
1. By traditional evidence;
2. By production of documents of title which must be duly authenticated in the sense that their due execution must be proved;
3. Acts of ownership extending over a sufficient length of time and numerous and positive enough to warrant the inference that the person is the true owner;
4. Acts of long possession and enjoyment of land which may be prima facie evidence of ownership of the particular piece or parcel of land or quantity of land;
5. 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.
Each of the five ways stated above suffices to establish title to a disputed piece of land.
See Sogunro v Yeku (2017) 9 NWLR Part 1570 Page 290 at 329-330 Para H-A per Peter-Odili JSC; Orianzi v. A/G Rivers State (2017) 6 NWLR Part 1561 Page 224 at 264-265 Para H-C per Galinje JSC; Faleye v Dada (2016) 15 NWLR Part 1534 Page 80 at 104-105 Para G-A per Peter Odili JSC; Addah v. Ubandawaki (2015) 7 NWLR Part 1458 Page 325 at 343- 344 Para C-A; (2015) All FWLR Part 775 Page 200 at 211 Para C-G per Fabiyi JSC; Idundun v. Okumagba (1976) 10 NSCC Page 445 at 453 Line 42; Page 457 Line 45 per Fatayi-Williams JSC.” PER OLUDOTUN ADEBOLA ADEFOPE-OKOJIE, J.C.A.
EVIDENCE: WAYS TO IDENTITY LAND
“The two ways by which the Claimant can establish the identity of the land in dispute are:
1. Oral description that any surveyor acting on such description can produce a survey plan of land in dispute.
2. Claimant may file a survey plan showing the features and boundaries.
See Awote v. Owodunni (1987) 2 NWLR Part 57 Page 367 at 371 Para E-G per Oputa JSC.
As held in the case of Awodi v. Ajagbe (2015) 3 NWLR Part 1447 Page 578 at 611 Para C-D; (2015) All FWLR Part 769 Page 1129 at 1153-1154 Para H-B per Rhodes-Vivour JSC, a plan prepared by a Surveyor and evidence of a Surveyor is the best way to resolve the identity of the land.” PER OLUDOTUN ADEBOLA ADEFOPE-OKOJIE, J.C.A.
LAND LAW: DECLARATION OF TITLE TO LAND
“A party seeking a declaration of title to land, who relies on traditional history as proof of his root of title must plead the same sufficiently. He must demonstrate in his pleading the original founder of the land, how he founded the land, the particulars of the intervening owners through whom he claims. Where a party has not given sufficient information in his pleadings as regard the ownership of the land and the line of succession to himself, he has just laid the foundation for the failure of his claim – Anyafulu v. Meka (2014) 7 NWLR Part 1406 Page 396 at 430 Para A-C per Okoro JSC.” PER OLUDOTUN ADEBOLA ADEFOPE-OKOJIE, J.C.A.
JUSTICES
OBIETONBARA O. DANIEL-KALIO Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
OLUDOTUN ADEBOLA ADEFOPE-OKOJIE Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
JAMES GAMBO ABUNDAGA Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
Between
MAI UNGUWA LAWAL BALA Appellant(s)
AND
1. LIYAFA PALACE
2. ALH. ABBA M. T. USMAN
3. MINISTRY OF LANDS & SURVEY KATSINA Respondent(s)
OLUDOTUN ADEBOLA ADEFOPE-OKOJIE, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment):
The facts leading to the institution of this appeal are predicated on the claim by the Appellant before the lower Court, per his Statement of Claim dated 21/6/2010 (Page 4-10 of Record), for the following reliefs:
1. A declaration by the honourable Court that the defendants have no legal right, authority, control, dominion, interest etc. over the plaintiff’s two pieces of land, as same were inherited by him from his late father.
2. A declaration that the defendants (sic) invasion into the Plaintiff’s pieces of land situate at behind Liyafa Palace Hotel Katsina is illegal and amounts to trespass on his plots of land.
3. A declaration that the plaintiff is the rightful owner of the two pieces of land situate as here in before stated and is entitled to the peaceful and exclusive use and enjoyment of same.
4. An order of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants, their agents, servants, representatives, privies, allies, etc. from further entering or the erecting any structure on the plots in issue and from altering or tempering with the said plots of land in any manner howsoever.
5. Cost of filing this action and such other cost that this honorable Court may deem fit to make in the interest of justice in the circumstance.
The 1st and 2nd Respondents, who were the sole Defendants, at the time, denied liability in their Joint Statement of Defence dated 27/7/10 (Page 9-14 of Record) and by Counter-Claim urged the Court to:
a) Declare that the Defendants are the rightful owners of the entire parcel of land covered by Certificate of Occupancy No. KT.3796 dated 9/03/1990 whose boundaries are particularly delineated in the sketch plan annexed thereto and described at the schedule to the said Certificate.
b) That the Right of Occupancy of the Defendants over the said land is valid and subsisting.
The 3rd Respondent was later joined as the 3rd Defendant by the lower Court, at the instance of the Appellant. It filed a Statement of Defence but called no witnesses. It however filed a final Written Address before the lower Court.
In proof of his claim, the Appellant testified, albeit inconclusively, as his evidence in chief was not completed and he was thus not cross examined. He however called five witnesses in proof of his claim. He tendered no exhibits. The 1st and 2nd Defendants called seven witnesses in their defence and in proof of their Counter- Claim. They tendered three exhibits. The 3rd Respondent called no witnesses.
The trial Judge, Sada Abdulmumini J of the Katsina State High Court, in a judgment delivered on 16/4/12, dismissing the case of the Appellant, held that the Appellant had failed to prove his claim. He held further that the pleadings had settled the case between the parties, showing that there is no dispute to adjudicate upon between them. With respect to the counter claim of the 1st and 2nd Respondents, he held that their title over the land claimed by them is undisputed and that the Appellant had failed to show that the Respondents are holding on to land not covered by their (1st and 2nd Respondents) Certificate of Occupancy.
Dissatisfied by this decision, the Appellant sought from this Court, and was granted leave to appeal out of time, consequent upon which he filed his Notice of Appeal on 21/5/14. He followed this up with the Appellant’s Brief of Arguments, settled by A. I. T. Adams Esq. of Maidangana Chambers, No. 166 Yahaya Madaki Way, Katsina, Katsina State dated the 23rd day of July, 2014 and filed on 11/8/14.
The 1st and 2nd Respondents’ Brief of Argument was settled by Sir Odoemena A. C. Esq. and Kamaladdin Umar Esq of Amana Chambers, No. 1041, IBB Way, Katsina on 12th March, 2018, in which they raised a Preliminary Objection, seeking the striking out of the grounds of appeal and a declaration of the incompetence of the grounds, for the following reasons:
1. That all the grounds of the Appeal are grounds of fact or at most mixed law and fact and same are hereby incompetent as the leave of either the lower Court or this Court was not sought or obtained before the said grounds were filed.
2. That the argument canvassed in respect of all the grounds are incompetent as same can only be canvassed or at best under the omnibus ground of appeal which is not filled before this honourable Court having regard to the fact that the aforesaid arguments are based and/or premised on the reliance by the lower Court on the credible evidence of the respondents which the trial Court believed.
3. Pursuant to 2 above and by virtue of Section 241 (1) and 243 (1) and (3) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, (as amended) the leave of the lower Court or Court of Appeal ought to have been sought or obtained before the Appellant file his appeal.
4. Apart from being grounds of fact or mixed law and facts at the very best grounds 1, 2 and 3 are complaints against the exercise of judicial discretion of the lower Court and appeal does not lie as of right against such a dissection.
5. Further and in alternative to 4 above, do not come under any of the conditions stipulated in Section 241 (1) of the 1999 Constitution as amended.
6. Leave granted by this honourable Court to the appellant here on the 8th day of May, 2014 was for leave to appeal against the judgment delivered on the 16th day of April, 2012 by the High Court of Justice Katsina State, presided over by Honourable Justice Sada Abdulmumuni and not leave to appeal on the grounds of mixed law and fact.
Learned Counsel distilled issues for determination in the event that the Preliminary Objection proved unsuccessful. Before proceeding to a consideration of the appeal, the Preliminary Objection shall be summarily dispensed with.
The contention of the 1st and 2nd Respondents is, in the main, that the grounds of appeal are grounds of fact or at most mixed law and facts and thus incompetent, leave of the Court not having been first sought and obtained and thus contrary to Section 241 (1) and 243(1) and (3) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended).
Even though the Appellant filed no Reply to these arguments, I find it unnecessary to belabour this issue, as the Constitution is clear, by Section 241 (1) thereof, that appeals lie to the Court of Appeal as of right from final decisions of the High Court sitting in its original jurisdiction.
Section 241(1) of the Constitution Supra, provides as follows:
SECTION 241
[APPEALS AS OF RIGHT FROM THE FEDERAL HIGH COURT OR A HIGH COURT.]
1. An appeal shall lie from decisions of the Federal High Court or a High Court to the Court of Appeal as of right in the following cases-
a. final decisions in any civil or criminal proceedings before the Federal High Court or a High Court sitting at first instance.
The decision of the lower Court being a final decision of the Court, sitting as a Court of first instance, no leave of this or the lower Court is required to render the appeal competent, I hold. The Preliminary Objection thus lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.
I now proceed to the substantive appeal.
The issues for determination raised by the Appellant’s Counsel are the following:
1. Whether the exclusively quiet and peaceful possession of the land in dispute by the Appellant between a period of 35 to 36 years does not amount to undisputed ownership.
2. Whether the Appellant has proved his case beyond preponderance of evidence and balance of probabilities in accordance with Section 134 of the Evidence Act 2011 (as amended).
3. Whether the 1st and 2nd Respondents have proved their Counter Claim before the lower Court in accordance with the law.
The issues for determination raised by the 1st and 2nd Respondent’s Counsel are the following:
1. Whether the Appellant had led sufficient and credible evidence to establish that he had quiet and peaceful possession of the land in dispute between 35 to 36 years.
2. Whether the Appellant has proved his case on the preponderance of evidence and balance of probabilities in accordance with Section 134 of the Evidence Act, 2011 (as amended).
3. Whether or not the 1st and 2nd Respondents have proved their Counter Claim before the lower Court in accordance with the law.
The issues that arise for determination, in my opinion, are the 2nd and 3rd issues raised by the parties, which issues are identical, namely:
1. Whether the Appellant has proved his case on the preponderance of evidence and balance of probabilities in accordance with Section 134 of the Evidence Act, 2011 (as amended).
2. Whether or not the 1st and 2nd Respondents have proved their Counter Claim before the lower Court in accordance with the law.
At the hearing of the appeal, the Appellant was absent and was not represented. The Court, at the instance of Counsel to the 1st and 2nd Respondents, deemed the Appellant’s appeal duly argued, in consonance with Order 19 Rule 9(4) of the Court of Appeal Rules 2016. The 3rd Respondent filed no Brief of Arguments and was also not represented at the hearing of the appeal.
The summary of the evidence of the Appellant’s witnesses before the lower Court is that the Plaintiff inherited the land, including the land in dispute, from his grandfather. The 2nd Respondent is the head of management and proprietor of the 1st Respondent hotel. The Appellant sold land to the predecessors in title of 1st and 2nd Respondents. The witnesses denied that the portion in dispute was sold to the 1st and 2nd Respondents or their predecessors in title. They alleged that the Appellant challenged the encroachment of the Respondents and reported to the Emir, who directed the Respondents to pay for the disputed portion, which was not done.
The 1st and 2nd Respondents, in their defence denied any arrangement or instruction to them to pay for any extra land. They alleged that their predecessor in title, who was the 2nd Respondent’s father, owned the farmland and that he was later granted rights of occupancy in the name of his hotel by the Governor of Katsina State. They contended that the 2nd Respondent’s father had been in undisturbed occupation and exercising acts of ownership over the land for over 40 years before his death, after which he handed all his property over to the 2nd Respondent. They accused the Appellant of standing by for the 40 years that the father of the 2nd Respondent was alive and in quiet possession, exercising acts of ownership, such as building the 1st Respondent hotel in 1980. They accused the Appellant of laches and acquiescence, contending that they are the owners of the land covered by the Certificate of Occupancy.
Learned Appellant’s Counsel has submitted that the quiet and peaceful possession of the land in dispute by the Appellant for a period of 35-36 years amounted to undisputed ownership of the land. Citing the five ways of proof of ownership of land, he submitted that the evidence of the Appellant’s witnesses that the Appellant had been in quiet and peaceful possession of the land, by planting trees and the sale of the land to the father of the 2nd Respondent, who used it to build the 1st Respondent hotel, had proved his case on the preponderance of evidence and balance of probabilities.
He denied that the equitable defences of laches and acquiescence availed the Respondents, in view of the report to the said Council, when the encroachment was observed.
Contending to the contrary, the learned Counsel to the 1st and 2nd Respondents, referring to the evidence of the Appellant’s witnesses, submitted that their testimony was contradictory and at variance with the Appellant’s pleadings. The Appellant, he said, referred to two versions of Exhibits D1 and D2 which annexed his plots of land but failed to produce them or lead evidence in proof, thereby abandoning these averments. The Appellant, having kept quiet for over 30 years, without laying claim to any portion of the land of the 1st and 2nd Respondent’s land but stood by while they developed the plots and are in active possession, is caught by the doctrine of standing by, occasioned by laches and acquiescence.
Counsel also submitted that the Appellant failed to establish the identity of the plots he claimed, including their size, their boundaries and location, thus failing in his claim for declaration of title, attracting the verdict of dismissal of his claim.
While Counsel to the Appellant has not specified which of the five modes of ownership he relies on, it is clear from his pleadings and the evidence of his witnesses that the mode relied upon is traditional ownership or ownership by inheritance/long possession.
His pleading on the manner of ownership and identity of the land, is contained at Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the Statement of Claim, contained at Page 4 of the Record, where he averred as follows:
4. The Plaintiffs avers that he inherited the two plots of land in dispute as farmlands from his late father, 40 years ago.
5. That the two plots of land border the first defendant from the North-West and South-West respectively.
It is settled law that the five ways of proof of land are the following:
1. By traditional evidence;
2. By production of documents of title which must be duly authenticated in the sense that their due execution must be proved;
3. Acts of ownership extending over a sufficient length of time and numerous and positive enough to warrant the inference that the person is the true owner;
4. Acts of long possession and enjoyment of land which may be prima facie evidence of ownership of the particular piece or parcel of land or quantity of land;
5. 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.
Each of the five ways stated above suffices to establish title to a disputed piece of land.
See Sogunro v Yeku (2017) 9 NWLR Part 1570 Page 290 at 329-330 Para H-A per Peter-Odili JSC; Orianzi v. A/G Rivers State (2017) 6 NWLR Part 1561 Page 224 at 264-265 Para H-C per Galinje JSC; Faleye v Dada (2016) 15 NWLR Part 1534 Page 80 at 104-105 Para G-A per Peter Odili JSC; Addah v. Ubandawaki (2015) 7 NWLR Part 1458 Page 325 at 343- 344 Para C-A; (2015) All FWLR Part 775 Page 200 at 211 Para C-G per Fabiyi JSC; Idundun v. Okumagba (1976) 10 NSCC Page 445 at 453 Line 42; Page 457 Line 45 per Fatayi-Williams JSC.
In a claim for declaration of title, the Claimant must prove his claim with cogent, satisfactory and uncontradicted evidence, which includes the establishment of the identity of the land in dispute. See Nwabuoku v. Onwordi (2006) All FWLR Part 331 Page 1236 at 1255 Para A-B per Mukhtar JSC (as she then was).
A party seeking a declaration of title to land, who relies on traditional history as proof of his root of title must plead the same sufficiently. He must demonstrate in his pleading the original founder of the land, how he founded the land, the particulars of the intervening owners through whom he claims. Where a party has not given sufficient information in his pleadings as regard the ownership of the land and the line of succession to himself, he has just laid the foundation for the failure of his claim – Anyafulu v. Meka (2014) 7 NWLR Part 1406 Page 396 at 430 Para A-C per Okoro JSC.
As observed by the lower Court, the Appellant had a duty to prove his boundaries claimed by him.
The lower Court held, at Page 49 of the Record:
If Plaintiff is claiming from the defendant outside land from covered (sic) by Exhibit and defendants are only interested in the land covered by Exhibit I dare say that the pleadings have settle (sic) the case between parties as there is no dispute to adjudicate between them. In light of what he pleaded in the counter claim (sic) and reply to the counter claim if the lands plaintiff is claiming in the writ and pleaded are outside the Certificate he has a duty to show not only their boundaries but also to show that they are in possession of the defendants. I have seen that in paragraph one of the relief sought by him as endorsed on the writ and the statement of claim he described the plots as situated behind Liyafa Palace Hotel. Liyafa Place Hotel as 1st Defendant has given certificate Exhibit as the land it owned if the land is situated behind Liyafa Hotel consequently outside Exhibit but defendants are only claiming land covered by Exhibit only. Plaintiff has to show that beside Exhibit the defendants are still holding the disputed lands which are not covered by the certificate.
The Court thence held that the Appellant had failed to prove the two plots owned by him behind the 1st Respondent hotel.
It also held:
If there is any other land aside from what is contained in Exhibit D1 and D2 Defendants are not therefore contesting it and are not claiming ownership of same also. I think the issue has been settled by the pleading of the parties. If there is any such land Plaintiff sought to claim from Defendants then Defendants are not contesting it moreso Plaintiff is not disputing Exhibit D1 and D2 issued by 3rd Defendant.
It looks to me from the foregoing that that the Plaintiff has no case to contest with the Defendants since Exhibit D1 and D2 on which the Defendant relied is not disputed by Plaintiff and pleaded that the disputed land is not in Exhibit D1 and D2. I find that Plaintiff has not proved his case against the Defendants and I accordingly dismiss the action no cost awarded.
The Appellant, as rightly held by the trial Court, failed to plead specifically or prove the area claimed by him. The burden of proof of the identity and boundaries of the land in dispute, in an action for declaration of title to land, is squarely on the claimant. This burden can be discharged either by oral evidence or by survey plan showing clearly the area to which his claim relates. It is thus, necessary for a Plaintiff who claims declaration and injunction to properly and unmistakably identify the land in dispute in view of the order for injunction which cannot certainly be granted in respect of an undefined area. Where he fails to prove the boundaries of the land he asserts to be in dispute or did not satisfactorily describe the dimension and locality, or the description contradicts the plan, the proper order to make is one of dismissal of the claim. See Addah v. Ubandawaki (2015) 7 NWLR Part 1458 Page 325 at 348 Para C-E; (2015) All FWLR Part 775 Page 200 at 215 Para F-H per I.T Muhammad JSC.
In addition to this, where a person relies on traditional history as his root of title to land, the onus is on him to plead the root of title and the history of his ancestors. He should lead evidence to show same, without leaving any yawning gap. A Court has no jurisdiction to supply any missing link in a genealogical tree from progenitors to a Claimant. See Awodi v. Ajagbe (2015) 3 NWLR Part 1447 Page 578 at 604 Para D-E; (2015) All FWLR Part 769 Page 1129 at 1147 Para G-H per Fabiyi JSC; Faleye v Dada (2016) 15 NWLR Part 1534 Page 80 at 108 Para D-F per Peter Odili JSC; Anyafulu v. Meka (2014) 7 NWLR Part 1406 Page 396 at 411 Para D-F per Aka?ahs JSC.
The Appellant, neither in his pleadings nor in his evidence before the lower Court, gave evidence of the family?s history of ownership. He merely pleaded, ‘The Plaintiff avers that he inherited the two plots of land in dispute as farmlands from his late father, 40 years ago’.
This, I hold, is insufficient pleading on his claim to ownership by inheritance. There is no pleading or evidence on the original founder of the land or the intervening owners, leading to the ownership of the land by his father. Proof of ownership by inheritance/traditional evidence has thus not been made out.
When the question of long possession arises, the burden of proving that the person in possession is not the owner rests on the person who says he is not. In addition, long possession is to be used as a shield and not a sword. It cannot found a claim of declaration of title to land, damages for trespass and perpetual injunction against the true owner of title to such land. See Atunrase v. Sunmola (1985) 1 NSCC Page 115 (SC) at 123 Lines 3 & 4 per Kawu JSC See also Kyari v. Alkali (2001) 11 NWLR Part 724 Page 412 at 446 Para F-G per Iguh JSC.
Indeed a party, whose claim to ownership depends on long possession and use of the land, has only equitable title and cannot be granted a declaration of title.
Thus, not only can the defence of long possession not found a claim for declaration of title, the Appellant has failed to prove that the 1st and 2nd Respondents are not owners of the land in dispute. He also did not dispute the ownership of the 1st and 2nd Respondents of the area covered by the Certificate of Occupancy, Exhibit D2. Having failed to prove ownership of any land outside the area covered by this Certificate of Occupancy or the ownership of any land occupied by these Respondents, he failed to prove his case, I hold, on the balance of probabilities. His claim to title was rightly dismissed by the lower Court. I thus resolve the 1st issue for determination against the Appellant.
The 2nd issue for determination is the following:
Whether or not the 1st and 2nd Respondents have proved their Counter Claim before the lower Court in accordance with the law.
While the Appellant argues that the Counter Claim was not proved in view of the report to the Emirate Council which tried to resolve the matter, learned Counsel to the 1st and 2nd Respondents contends that the Counterclaim had been proved and that the Certificates of Occupancy tendered are sufficient proof of this, in addition to the evidence of the defence witnesses. Learned Counsel to the 1st and 2nd Respondents further argued that the authenticity of the Certificate of Occupancy and the ownership of the land described, having been admitted and thus not in dispute, dispensed with the necessity to call further evidence.
The Counter Claim of the 1st and 2nd Respondents, as stated above is that they are the rightful owners of the land covered by the Certificate of Occupancy, whose boundaries are delineated in the sketch plan annexed and described in the schedule to the Certificate. They tendered the Certificate of Occupancy, Exhibit D2, in which the Survey Plan was enclosed and also tendered a separate copy of the Survey Plan (Exhibit D1). This, Counsel submitted, satisfied the requirement of proof of the boundaries of the land.
The two ways by which the Claimant can establish the identity of the land in dispute are:
1. Oral description that any surveyor acting on such description can produce a survey plan of land in dispute.
2. Claimant may file a survey plan showing the features and boundaries.
See Awote v. Owodunni (1987) 2 NWLR Part 57 Page 367 at 371 Para E-G per Oputa JSC.
As held in the case of Awodi v. Ajagbe (2015) 3 NWLR Part 1447 Page 578 at 611 Para C-D; (2015) All FWLR Part 769 Page 1129 at 1153-1154 Para H-B per Rhodes-Vivour JSC, a plan prepared by a Surveyor and evidence of a Surveyor is the best way to resolve the identity of the land.
Indeed, as observed by the lower Court above, there was no dispute by the Appellant of the land claimed by the 1st and 2nd Respondents and covered by their Certificate of Occupancy, Exhibit D2. As also observed above, Exhibit D2 has attached to it a Survey Plan and a schedule showing the dimensions of the land. Exhibit D2 was authenticated by DW3, Abubakar Umar, the Director preparing Certificates of Occupancy. The Survey Plan, Exhibit D1, was tendered by DW4, Isa Abdulkadir, Assistant Surveyor General of Katsina State.
As again observed by the lower Court, there was no dissension on the area covered by Exhibits D1 and D2.
A Certificate of Occupancy, if properly issued by a competent authority, raises a presumption, I hold, that the holder is the owner in exclusive possession of the land and that at the time it was issued, there was not in existence a customary owner whose title has not been revoked.
See Ezeanah v Atta (2004) 7 NWLR Part 873 Page 468 at 501 Para A-C per Tobi JSC; Eso v. Adeyemi (1994) 4 NWLR Part 340 Page 558 at 573 Para G-H per Salami JCA; Mani v. Shanono (2007) All FWLR Part 345 Page 303 CA at 324 Para C-D per Ba’aba JCA.
This presumption has not been dislodged by the Appellant, I hold. The 1st and 2nd Respondents, I accordingly hold, proved their Counter Claim before the lower Court. I again resolve the 2nd issue for determination against the Appellant.
Having resolved both issues for determination against the Appellant, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. The judgment of the lower Court is affirmed. Costs of N30,000.00 are awarded against the Appellant.
OBIETONBARA O. DANIEL-KALIO, J.C.A.: I have read in draft form, the judgment of my lord OLUDOTUN ADEBOLA ADEFOPE-OKOJIE JCA. My lord has considered relevant case law on proof of ownership to land and has come to the conclusion which I also have, that the lower Court was right in its judgment. I therefore have no difficulty in agreeing that the appeal has no merit. I dismiss it. I abide by the order as to costs made by my lord.
JAMES GAMBO ABUNDAGA, J.C.A.: I have read in draft the judgment of my learned brother, Adefope-Okojie, JCA. I am in total agreement with him that this appeal is lacking in merit and ought to be dismissed. I also dismiss it with costs assessed at N30,000.00 against the Appellant.
Appearances:
No appearanceFor Appellant(s)
Abubakar Suleiman for 1st and 2nd Respondents.For Respondent(s)
