MOMAH & ANOR v. EGWUAWA (2022)

MOMAH & ANOR v. EGWUAWA

(2022)LCN/17127(CA)

In The Court Of Appeal

(AWKA JUDICIAL DIVISION)

On Friday, December 16, 2022

CA/AW/489/2018

Before Our Lordships:

Chioma Egondu Nwosu-Iheme Justice of the Court of Appeal

Frederick Oziakpono Oho Justice of the Court of Appeal

Patricia Ajuma Mahmoud Justice of the Court of Appeal

Between

1. MRS. IFEOMA REBECCA MOMAH 2. MRS. ALAKA CECILIA OGOCHUKWU APPELANT(S)

And

MR. HILLARY EGWUAWA (For Himself And On Behalf Of The Members Of Late Chief R.O. Egwuawa’s Family) RESPONDENT(S)

RATIO

THE DUTY OF A PLAINTIFF IN AN ACTION FOR DECLARATION OF TITE OF LAND

Now turning to whether the Respondent established the identity of the land in dispute to entitle him to the declaration of title over the land. As rightly held in OGUNSINA V OGUNLEYE [1994] 5 NWLR, PT. 346, 625 AT 635, PARAS G – H:
“The first duty of a plaintiff in an action for declaration of title to land is to establish with certainty the identity of the land he is claiming. He could do this by way of a survey plan, but there have been cases which laid it down that, in establishing the identity of land in dispute in an action for declaration of title to land, a survey plan is not a sine qua non. What is important is that evidence to establish the identity of the land in dispute is given in such a detailed and clear manner with regard to the features, boundaries and size of the land as to ensure that the identity of the land is understood.”
See also DANJUMA V S.C.C. (NIG.) LTD [2017] 6 NWLR, PT. 1561, 175 AT 204, PARAS E-G. The need to properly identify the land for which a declaration of title is sought is to ensure that when a declaration of title is made, it relates to land ascertained with certainty both as to its location and boundary. See EKWEALOR V OBASI [1990] 2 NWLR, PT. 131, 231 AT 254. Where it is clear that both parties to an action for declaration of title to land are not in doubt as to the identity, location, size, or boundaries of the land in dispute, a survey plan will not be necessary to establish the identity of the land. See OLUJINLE V ADEAGBO [1988] 2 NWLR, PT. 75, 238 AT 249, PARA E, where Nnaemeka-Agu, JSC rightly held that:
“it is now perfectly settled that a plan is not a sine qua non in every land case. Where, in a case like this both parties know the quantity and quality of the land in dispute between them, a plan ceases to be an absolute necessity.” SEE ALSO OSANYINBI V SOKENU [2001] 3 NWLR, PT. 699, 170 AT 182, PARAS B-E. PER MAHMOUD, J.C.A.

THE POSITION OF LAW WHERE THERE IS SUFFICIENT AND SATISFACTORY EVIDENCE OF THE IDENTITY OF A LAND IN DISPUTE

At the risk of repetition, I make bold to say that where sufficient and satisfactory evidence of the identity of the land in dispute is adduced, the mere fact that different names are ascribed to it or that the area where it is located is called by different names is not fatal to the case of the party claiming title. See MAKANJUOLA V BALOGUN [1989] 3 NWLR, PT. 108, 192 AT 204, PARA C, 207 PARA F, 211 PARAS G-H AND 212, PARA D. PER MAHMOUD, J.C.A.

PATRICIA AJUMA MAHMOUD, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): Sometime in 2004, the Plaintiff caused a writ of summons to issue against the Defendants at the Idemili Judicial Division of the High Court of Anambra State. In Paragraph 32 of the Further Amended Statement of Claim dated 2nd July 2013, the Plaintiff claimed the following reliefs against the Defendants:
a. A declaration that the land in dispute herein is the property of late Chief R. O. Egbuawa hence the Plaintiff is entitled to the grant of Certificate of Occupancy over the land, the subject matter of this suit.
b. A declaration that the Defendants are not entitled to set up any personal store(s) and/or building(s) on the land in dispute.
c. An injunction restraining the Defendants, their agent, servants, and privies or howsoever called from commencing, continuing, and/or completing any stores and/or building etc, structure at all on the land in dispute being the Plaintiff’s personal property.
d. General damages of N2m for unwarranted interference in the land in dispute, the personal property of the Plaintiff.

The Defendants filed a Further Amended Statement of Defence dated 20th May 2014. The gist of the case is that the Plaintiff’s father commenced this action against the Defendants claiming that he bought the disputed land from Mr. Chukwujike and was issued with a deed of indenture dated the 3rd October, 1991. Mr. Chukwujike bought the land from the Nwannem family who allegedly own the land. Subsequently, the Plaintiff found that the land is owned by the Achusim family and not the Nwannem family. The Plaintiff then repurchased the land from the Achusim family in 1992. Much later the Onitsha North Local Government Area of Anambra State entered the land and demolished the structure on it. This resulted in a litigation which was later amicably resolved. Following the amicable resolution of the issues in the litigation, the Plaintiff obtained a leasehold interest from the Onitsha North Local Government. The Plaintiff further averred that the land was revoked by the Anambra State Government in 2001 for overriding public interest. However, the Plaintiff later applied for the validation of his right over the said land through the State Constituted Investigation Committee for Onitsha New Cemetery Land and paid some fees. The Plaintiff later found that the Respondents have entered upon the land and started developing the land. Hence this action. The Plaintiff passed away and his name was substituted with that of his son.

The Defendants on the other hand, claimed that they also purchased the land in dispute from the Nwannem family in 1977. The purchase was evidenced in a deed of conveyance dated 4th January, 1978. The Defendants later discovered that the land did not belong to the Nwannem family but to the Achusim family. They negotiated and repurchased the said land from the Achusim family. The repurchased land is evidenced in a memorandum dated 31st March, 1983 and another memorandum incorporating a survey plan was executed in 2004. It is the case of the Defendants that they have been in possession for a long time.

At the hearing of the suit, the Plaintiff called a total of four witnesses, while the Defendants called a total of five witnesses. Both parties tendered several documents including survey plans in evidence. At the conclusion of trial, the respective counsel of both parties filed their respective final written addresses and thereafter adopted same.

In the judgment delivered on the 15th February, 2016, the Honourable Justice C. C. Okaa found for the Plaintiff and entered judgment as follows:
1. It is hereby declared that the Plaintiff is the person entitled to the grant of a certificate of occupancy over the property lying and situate at Oraifite Street Awada Obosi by Anazodo Street and more particularly verged pink on Survey Plan No. CD/AN/D.27/2004.
2. It is hereby declared that the Defendants were not entitled to erect any personal store and/or buildings on the land.
3. The Defendants, their agents, servants, and privies are perpetually restrained from commencing, continuing and or completing any store and/or building or any structure on the land.
4. N20,000.00 as general damages for trespass is awarded against the Defendants in favour of the Plaintiff.
5. The Defendants shall also pay cost of N50,000.00 to the Plaintiff.

Dissatisfied with the judgment, the Defendants commenced this appeal by filing a Notice of Appeal dated 18th February 2016. The Appellants further amended their Notice of Appeal which was deemed properly filed and served on the 23rd June 2022.

In compliance with the Rules of this Court, Record of Appeal was compiled and transmitted to this Court. Briefs were duly exchanged and the appeal was set down for hearing.

The Appellants’ Brief of Argument was settled by A.C. Anaenugwu, SAN, while the Respondent’s Brief of Argument was settled by Chukwudi Obieze, SAN.

Mr. A. C. Anaenugwu, SAN distilled three issues for the determination of this appeal in his Appellants’ Brief of Argument, to wit:
1. Whether the respondent and the appellants joined issues as to the identity of the land in dispute and if answered in the affirmative whether the respondent proved the identity of the land in dispute? Distilled from Ground 1.
2. Whether the respondent’s source of title is validly traceable to the Nwanem and/or Achusim families, regard being had to the case put forward by the respondent? Distilled from Ground 2.
3. Whether the learned trial Judge was right in making a declaration of title in favour of the respondent regard being had to the case put forward by the respondent and the evidence adduced by the parties? Distilled from Grounds 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7.

Chukwudi Obieze, SAN in Paragraph 2.01 of the Respondent’s Brief of Argument adopted the three issues for determination of this appeal submitted by the Appellants.

On Issue 1, Anaenugwu, SAN attacked the pronouncement of the trial Court that issues were not joined on the identity of the land in dispute. He argued that a party seeking a declaration of title to land must succeed on the strength of his case and not on the weakness of his adversary. The party must establish with certainty and precision the area of the land to which his claim for declaration of title relates and where he adduces contradictory evidence on the identity of the land, he should not be entitled to the declaration of title. He cited DANJUMA V S.C.C. (NIG.) LTD [2017] 6 NWLR, PT. 1561, 175 AT 204, PARAS E-G, KARIMU V LAGOS STATE GOVERNMENT [2012] 5 NWLR, PT. 1294, 620 AT 646, PARAS D – E AND ANYAWALE V ODUSANI [2011] 18 NWLR, PT. 1278, 328 AT 340, PARAS G-H.

He referred this Court to Paragraphs 2, 3, 20, 23, 24, 26, 28, 30, 32, and 34 of the Further Amended Statement of Defence and submitted that it is difficult to reconcile how the trial Court came to the conclusion that the parties did not join issues as to the identity of the land in dispute, particularly in the face of the averments in the said paragraphs and the Counter-dispute survey plan tendered in evidence by the Appellants. He urged this Court to hold that the Appellants by their pleadings put the identity of the land in issue.

He submitted that it has been established by a plethora of decided cases that in a claim for a declaration of title, a plaintiff must produce sufficient evidence to ascertain the definite and precise boundaries of the land claimed to be entitled to the relief sought. AWENI V OLORUNKOSEBI [1991] 7 NWLR, PT. 203, 336 AT 355, PARAS C-D AND AIYEOLA V PEDRO [2014] 13 NWLR, PT. 1424, 409 AT 439, PARAS G-H were called in aid. Thus where the survey plan filed by a plaintiff is at variance with his evidence as to the extent of the area of land claimed, the plaintiff’s action for declaration must fail. He cited ALADE V. DINA 17 NLR 32. He argued that the Respondent tendered Exhibits “A” and “K” respectively. Exhibit “A” which is a dispute survey plan, showed the area of the land in dispute as measuring 1421.959 square meters, while Exhibit “K” which is a “purported” certificate of customary right of occupancy shows the area of land in dispute as measuring 1521.932 square meters. He then submitted that Exhibits “A” and “K” which the Respondent relied on in seeking a declaration of title are contradictory as to the area and extent of the land in dispute and the Court is not permitted to pick and choose which of the exhibits to base its order of declaration on.

The Appellants’ counsel further attacked Exhibit “F” which was tendered by the Respondent in proof of his title. The said Exhibit F is a leasehold agreement between late Chief R.O. Egwuawa (the Respondent’s father who was the original Plaintiff) and Onitsha North Local Government Area. It was the Respondent’s case that at one time he obtained title of the land in dispute from Onitsha North Local Government Area as evidenced in Exhibit “F”. However, the recital to Exhibit “F” described the land in dispute as Cementary Area Awada, while the operative parts show that the land is in Onitsha North Local Government Area and the size of the land was put at 871.855 square meters. Put simply, the land which the Respondent was claiming and upon which the trial Court made a declaration of title in his favour was shown in three survey plans to have three different and distinct sizes and areas, all referring to the same land. He then submitted that to the extent that the Respondent was unsure of the measurement and location of the land in dispute, it cannot be rightly said that he discharged the burden of identifying the land in dispute. The decisions in KARIMU V LAGOS STATE GOVERNMENT [2012] 5 NWLR, PT. 1294, 620 AT 646, PARAS D-E was cited and relied on. He argued that the trial Court ought to have agreed with the Appellants that the land for which a declaration was sought is unascertainable and on the basis of this dismiss the claim for declaration of title. He urged this Court to resolve this issue in favour of the Appellants.

In response to this issue, the Respondent set out his averments in Paragraphs 3 and 6 of his Further Amended Statement of Claim together with the evidence elicited from the cross-examination of PW1, DW1, DW2, DW3, and DW4 and submitted that the requirement on the Respondent to proof with certainty and exactness, the land in dispute, has been discharged. He further submitted that what the Appellants set out to do was to show that the land in dispute was different from the one which they are occupying. To do this, the Appellants were required to have filed a superimposition plan in line with Order 15 Rule 10(3) of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules of Anambra State 2013, now Order 16 Rule 10(3) of the 2019 Rules. He submitted that rules of Court ought to be obeyed. He further admitted that the Appellants joined issues with the Respondent on the identity of the land in Paragraphs 2 and 3 of their Further Amended Statement of Defence, but upon a calm and calculated assessment of Paragraphs 5, 7 and 10 thereof, it will become obvious, coupled with the evidence led, that issues were not actually joined on the identity of the land in dispute. He urged this Court to resolve this issue in favour of the Respondent.

On Issue No. 2, A.C. Anaenugwu, SAN restated the law that parties are bound by their pleadings and a Court is not only bound by the said pleadings but cannot go outside the facts pleaded by parties or set up a case different from that which a party by his pleadings has clearly set up. He cited AKPAPUNA V NZEKA [1983] 14 NSCC, 287 AT 298. He referred this Court to paragraphs 7 – 12 of the Respondent’s Further Amended Statement of Claim where the Respondent averred that he bought the land in dispute from one Mr. Edwin Chukwujike (who had earlier purchased it from Nwannem family) on the 3rd October, 1991 and that when he realised that the true owners of the land were the Achusim family he went ahead to purchase the land from the Achusim family. The Respondent further averred that his title was revoked by the government of Anambra State and that he later applied for revalidation through the State constituted Investigation Committee for Onitsha New Cemetery Land. The learned Senior Advocate submitted that the Respondent having averred that his title which he obtained from Nwannem and Achusim families was revoked, the trial Court erred to have declared title for the Respondent based on a root of title derived from the Nwannem and Achusim families which title by the Respondent’s admission has been extinguished by the Government of Anambra State. The trial Court ought to have restricted itself strictly to determining the Respondent’s case as pleaded, i.e, whether the Respondent proved his title from Anambra State Government. He cited the Black’s Law Dictionary, 9th edition which defined revocation as an “annulment, cancellation or reversal usually of an act or power” and submitted that to the extent that the title derived from the Nwannem and Achusim families have been annulled by the revocation of the land by the Government of Anambra State, no title can be predicated by the Respondent in such interest and the Court cannot make any declaration of title in favour of a party whose root of title from a source had by his own admission been annulled and cancelled. The cases of SOBANDE V IGBOEKWE [2016] 11 NWLR, PT. 1523, 335 AT 353, PARAS G-H AND 354 E-F AND YUSUF V OYETUNDE [1998] 12 NWLR, PT. 579, 483 were cited and relied on. He further submitted that a declaration could only have been made in favour of the Respondent if he was able to establish a valid transfer of title from the Anambra State Government. In the instant case, there was no evidence that the Respondent established his title from the new root of title, i.e., the Anambra State Government. The Respondent merely pleaded that he made an application for revalidation of his interest but woefully failed to tender any such documents in evidence. It is thus clear that if any such documents were produced it would have been against the interest of the Respondent. Section 167(d) of the Evidence Act and ADISA V OYINWOLA [2000] 10 NWLR, PT. 674, 116 AT 179, Paras. B-C were relied on.

He submitted that the Court set up a case different from that pleaded by the Respondent and that occasioned a grave miscarriage of justice against the Appellants. TOTAL (NIG.) LTD V NWAKO [1978] 5 SC, 1 AND ADISA V OYINWOLA [SUPRA] were relied on. In sum, he argued that the trial Court was wrong to have made a declaration of title in favour of the Respondent based on his title purportedly derived from the Nwannem and Achusim families whereby his pleadings the Respondent had clearly abandoned that source of title.

Responding to this issue, Mr. Chukwudi Obieze, SAN referred us to Paragraphs 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12 of his Further Amended Statement of Claim where he traced his title to the Nwannem and Achusim families and in Paragraphs 13, 14, and 15 of the same process where he pleaded the incursions of the Onitsha North Local Government Area Council into the area in dispute. In response to the claim that the land in dispute was revoked, the Respondent submitted that the revocation was rescinded and title restored to the Respondent and that the finding of the trial Court that the Respondent proved his title is based on the fact of revalidation by the Anambra State Government. He further submitted that the Respondent’s source of title is validly traceable to the Nwannem and Achusim families. He urged this Court to resolve this issue in favour of the Respondent and against the Appellants.

On Issue No. 3, Mr. A.C. Anaenugwu, SAN set out the holding of the trial Court that “I hold therefore that the Plaintiff bought the land in dispute from the Nwannem family…” and submitted that by the Respondent’s pleadings he admitted that he discovered that the Nwannem family were not the true owners of the land but that the land belongs to the Achusim family and that the finding is at variance with the said pleadings.

He further contended that the Respondent who pleaded two contradictory sources of title and led contradictory evidence in proof of the said sources of title is not entitled to a declaration of title. As gleaned from the pleading of the Respondent, his case is that he first bought the land in dispute from the Nwannem family and that the said transaction is evidenced by Exhibit N. While the Appellants’ case is that they bought the land in dispute from the same Nwannem family and the transaction is evidenced by Exhibits S and X. When the Appellants later discovered the superior title of the Achusim’s, they went ahead to purchase the land from the said Achusim family and the transaction was evidenced in Exhibits C and C1; Deed of Conveyance. The Respondent did not challenge the authenticity of the Appellants’ title documents, Exhibits N, S, and X. He then submitted that the trial Court suo moto raised the issue of authenticity of the Appellants’ title documents and decided on it. The Court should have determined the title to the land in dispute on the principle of priority since both parties traced their title to a common vendor. If this was adopted, the Appellants would have been first in time since they obtained their title on 31/3/1983. He cited and relied on AYANWELE V ODUSAMI [2011] 18 NWLR, PT. 1278, 328 AT 349, PARAS F-H. He further submitted that the trial Court had no legal basis to embark on a journey of comparing the signatures on the title documents of the Appellants, particularly as no issues was joined on it. The learned Senior Advocate highlighted the part of the judgment where the trial Court noted that the Appellants did not call either Mr. Linus Okafor or Mr. Gabriel Agbanusi being persons who allegedly conveyed the land in dispute to them as a witness, whereas the Respondent called PW2 who identified the document of sale to the Respondent’s father by himself. He argued that the above reasoning formed the basis/crux upon which the trial Court entered judgment for the Respondent. He referred us to Paragraphs 13 and 14 of the witness statement on oath of DW1 where the witness testified that Mr. Linus Okafor or Mr. Gabriel Agbanusi had long passed on and that it was impossible to call a dead person to testify. In any event, it is not the law that a party seeking a declaration of title to land must call as a witness the person whom he got title from.
He urged this Court to resolve this issue in favour of the Appellants and accordingly set aside the judgment of the trial Court.

Responding to Issue 3, Mr. Obieze, SAN argued that the Nwannem family of Obasi were in actual possession of the land in dispute and the same family sold the land to the Respondent’s predecessor in title – Evangelist Eddy Bright Ikemere who sold to the Respondent. It was after the sale and upon the Respondent taking possession that he became aware of the Court injunction against the Nwannem family in favour of the Achusism Oliobi family. It was on the basis of this that the Respondent attorned Overlordship to the Achuisism family. Thus, it was wrong for the Appellants to allege that he was inconsistent in his pleadings as to the source of his title. He further argued that the trial Court was compelled by the force of duty to compare signatures giving that both parties claimed that they obtained title from the same vendor. He noted that the Respondent challenged the title of the Appellants, vide his documents, both in the pleadings and in evidence and that where both parties or one, claims title through purchase, then there is an onus on them to join the vendors to prove title. He cited ESO V ADEYEMI [1994] 4 NWLR, PT. 65, 297 AT 318 AND OLATUNJI V ADISA [1995] 2 NWLR, PT. 376, 167 AT 183. It was on the basis of this principle that he called PW2 and PW3 who gave unchallenged evidence on his behalf. The principle of competing interest does not arise because the trial Court had already found after its comparison of signatures that there was fishy business on the Appellants’ documents.

Let me begin the resolution of the issues canvassed by both parties in this appeal with Issue No. 1. The plank of the Appellants’ grouse on this issue is whether it joined issues with the Respondent on the identity of the land in dispute and if yes, whether the Respondent proved the identity of the land in dispute.

The law is trite that a party seeking a declaration of title to land must establish the identity of the land to which he seeks a declaration of title. Such a party may establish the identity of the land he seeks a declaration of title either by leading credible oral evidence or by tendering documents, including survey plans, showing the identity of the land. It is elementary law that to challenge the identity of a land in dispute, the defendant must specifically challenge either the area or the size or the location, or the features in his statement of defence. See OFFODILE V OFFODILE [2019] 16 NWLR, PT. 1698, 189 AT 210-211. IN AIYEOLA V PEDRO [2014] 13 NWLR, PT. 1424, 409 AT 461-462, PARAS C-E AND H-B respectively, the Supreme Court held that:
“Before the identity of land in dispute can be raised as an issue, the defendant must have raised it in his statement of defence by specifically disputing either the area or size covered or the location shown in the plaintiff’s plan (if there is a plan) or as described in the statement of claim. In such circumstances, a plaintiff who relies on a plan must show that his plan corresponds with the area claimed or in dispute. In the instant case, the appellant did not challenge the evidence and survey plan tendered by the respondent in proof of identity of the land in dispute. [Adenle v Olude (2002) 18 NWLR, Pt. 799, 413; Aro v Obaloro (1968) NMLR, 239; Oke v Eke (1982) 12 SC, 218; Salami v Oke (1987) 4 NWLR, Pt. 63, 1].”

Let me now turn to the Appellants’ further amended statement of defence to ascertain whether issue was properly joined on the identity of the land. The Appellants have already assisted this Court by setting out the paragraphs in their further amended statement of defence where they allegedly joined issues with the Respondent on the identity of the land in dispute. The paragraphs are 2, 3, 20, and 23 of their Further Amended Statement of Defence and are herein set out below:
“Paragraph 2:
Save that the land which the plaintiff now claims to be in dispute is known as and called Nkpu-Egbuajughalu land in Ozalla layout, Obosi in Idemili North Local Government Area of Anambra State, the defendants deny all the other averments in the said paragraph 3 of the Further Amended Statement of Claim. In answer, the defendants aver that the plaintiff’s Plan No. CD/AN/D27/2004 and dated 2/9/2004 does not properly show inter alia, the location, size, dimension, and features of the land which the plaintiff now claims to be in dispute.
Paragraph 3:
In further answer, the defendants aver that the accurate location, position, dimension, size, and features of the land in dispute are as shown in the defendants’ Amended Plan No. FALS/AN/LD.10/2007 filed with this Amended Statement of Defence. The defendants plead their above stated Survey Plan and shall at the trial rely on same and the features therein.
Paragraph 20:
With respect to paragraph 6 of the Further Amended Statement of Claim, the defendants, aver that the plaintiff’s therein referred Survey Plan does not show the actual location and size of the land which the plaintiff claims to be in dispute when super-imposed with the other plans being relied on by the plaintiff taking accurate measurements and using the appropriate coordinates.
Paragraph 23:
In the alternative, the defendants shall contend at the trial that assuming that the original plaintiff acquired any title, the land over such title as acquired, is not the same as the land now in dispute.”

I have deeply reflected on the excerpted paragraphs of the Appellants’ Further Amended Statement of Defence. It does appear to me that the Appellants specifically joined issues on the identity of the land in Paragraphs 2, 3, 20, and 23 of their Further Amended Statement of Defence.

Now turning to whether the Respondent established the identity of the land in dispute to entitle him to the declaration of title over the land. As rightly held in OGUNSINA V OGUNLEYE [1994] 5 NWLR, PT. 346, 625 AT 635, PARAS G – H:
“The first duty of a plaintiff in an action for declaration of title to land is to establish with certainty the identity of the land he is claiming. He could do this by way of a survey plan, but there have been cases which laid it down that, in establishing the identity of land in dispute in an action for declaration of title to land, a survey plan is not a sine qua non. What is important is that evidence to establish the identity of the land in dispute is given in such a detailed and clear manner with regard to the features, boundaries and size of the land as to ensure that the identity of the land is understood.”
See also DANJUMA V S.C.C. (NIG.) LTD [2017] 6 NWLR, PT. 1561, 175 AT 204, PARAS E-G. The need to properly identify the land for which a declaration of title is sought is to ensure that when a declaration of title is made, it relates to land ascertained with certainty both as to its location and boundary. See EKWEALOR V OBASI [1990] 2 NWLR, PT. 131, 231 AT 254. Where it is clear that both parties to an action for declaration of title to land are not in doubt as to the identity, location, size, or boundaries of the land in dispute, a survey plan will not be necessary to establish the identity of the land. See OLUJINLE V ADEAGBO [1988] 2 NWLR, PT. 75, 238 AT 249, PARA E, where Nnaemeka-Agu, JSC rightly held that:
“it is now perfectly settled that a plan is not a sine qua non in every land case. Where, in a case like this both parties know the quantity and quality of the land in dispute between them, a plan ceases to be an absolute necessity.” SEE ALSO OSANYINBI V SOKENU [2001] 3 NWLR, PT. 699, 170 AT 182, PARAS B-E.

In the instant case, it is difficult to fault the finding of the trial Court at page 171 of the record of appeal where it held that:
“From the pleadings and evidence before me, the parties, plaintiff and defendants’ witnesses adduced evidence showing a clear description of the land as to make it ascertainable to the parties. Parties called witnesses from Nwenem and Achusim families all of whom gave evidence showing a clear description of the land in dispute. The surveyor called by the defendants, DW4 was emphatic that the land he was shown has a road by two sides as it is a corner plot. DW2 in cross-examination agreed that the land in dispute is three plots in front of which lies Oraifite street and by the edge is Anazodo street. DW1 still in cross-examination stated that the land in dispute is within Oraifite street and at the edge, Anazodo street crosses it. PW2 and PW3 in their evidence in chief described the land in dispute as situating along MCC Oraifite street and Anazodo street.”

The evidence led by both parties clearly established with a reasonable degree of certainty the identity of the land in dispute and revealed that at least both parties are not in doubt as per the land in dispute for which a declaration of title is sought. The discrepancy in the size and name of the location are not sufficient to cast any doubt on the identity of the land or to make it unascertainable either by the parties or a surveyor. That the identity of the land in dispute is not in issue.

At the risk of repetition, I make bold to say that where sufficient and satisfactory evidence of the identity of the land in dispute is adduced, the mere fact that different names are ascribed to it or that the area where it is located is called by different names is not fatal to the case of the party claiming title. See MAKANJUOLA V BALOGUN [1989] 3 NWLR, PT. 108, 192 AT 204, PARA C, 207 PARA F, 211 PARAS G-H AND 212, PARA D.

More importantly, the parties claimed to have purchased the same land from the same parties, the Nwenem and Achusim families respectively. The trial Court at pages 168 – 172 of the record of appeal extensively reviewed the evidence of witnesses called by both parties on the identity of the land before coming to the conclusion that the identity of the land in dispute is not in dispute, notwithstanding the averments in Paragraphs 2, 3, 20 and 23 of the Appellants’ Further Amended Statement of Defence. The findings and conclusions of the trial Court on the identity of the land in dispute are unassailable and should thus not be disturbed. Accordingly, this issue is resolved in favour of the Respondent and against the Appellants.

The second and third issues submitted by both parties for determination in this appeal will be decided together. The Respondent’s case as discerned from his Further Amended Statement of Claim is that by a deed of indenture dated 3rd, October, 1991, his father first purchased the land in dispute from Mr. Edwin Chukwujike (AKA Evang. Eddy Bright Ikemere) who himself purchased the land from the Nwannem family via a deed of conveyance dated 3rd, January, 1978. Later the Respondent became aware of the order of injunction made in favour of the Achusim family in Suit No. O/23/91 between Linus Okafor (for himself and the entire members of the Achusim Oliobi family of Ire Village Obosi) V Onuorah Orawute & 4 Ors. He then obtained the consent of the Achusim family and agreed to a purchase price of N40,000.00 for the property. A deed of indenture and receipt dated 14th February, 1992 were issued to him. On the basis of the transfer he took possession and exercised acts of ownership over the land until the authorities of Onitsha North Local Government Area entered the land and destroyed his fence and other building materials thereon. In reaction, he commenced an action against the Onitsha Local Government Area and three other persons who acted with them. Following this action, the Respondent obtained a leasehold interest from the local government authority in respect of the same property on the 12th July, 1995 until December 2001 when the Government of Anambra State revoked all rights over the land. The Respondent further averred that he applied for the validation of his rights over the land and made necessary payments for ground rent, annual rents, and issuance of certificate of occupancy over the same land. Contrary to the submission of the Appellants, this is the case put forward by the Respondent as borne out in Paragraphs 3 – 22 of their Further Amended Statement of Claim. I do not agree with the Appellants that the Respondent put up a contradictory case for declaration of title. The Respondent led credible evidence including documentary evidence in proof of his title to the land in dispute commencing from the first purchase from Mr. Chukwujike and later from the Achusim family. The finding of the trial Court that the Respondent derived title from the Nwannem and Achusim families are borne out of evidence and thus the trial Court was on firma terrae when it declared title in favour of the Respondent as per the evidence led at the trial. The Appellants made heavy weather of the non-production of documents for validation, ground rent, etc pleaded by the Respondent, but accepted the fact of revocation even where notice of revocation was not tendered in evidence. It is not correct, as the Appellants have argued, that the trial Court set up a different case from the case which the Respondent set up. The finding that the Respondent established a valid transfer of the title in respect of the disputed land from the Nwannem family and later the Achusim family is consistent with the case set up by the Respondent. Similarly, the Appellants argued that the trial Court was not entitled to compare signatures on documents already admitted as exhibits. This is not the law. It is trite that a Court is entitled to scrutinize documents and processes before it in arriving at a just determination of any matter before it. In the instant case, the trial Court acted within the law when it compared the signatures of PW3 in Exhibit N with his signatures in Exhibits S and X respectively. This issue is accordingly resolved against the Appellants.

In the final analysis, this appeal is completely lacking in merit and it is accordingly dismissed.
I award cost of N200,000 against the Appellants in favour of the Respondent.

CHIOMA NWOSU-IHEME, J.C.A.: My learned brother P. A. MAHMOUD, JCA afforded me the opportunity to read before now, the judgment just delivered.

I agree with his reasoning and conclusion and also hold that this appeal lacks merit and it is hereby dismissed. I abide by the order as to costs in the leading judgment.

FREDERICK OZIAKPONO OHO, J.C.A.: I had the opportunity of reading the draft of the judgment just delivered by my learned brother, PATRICIA AJUMA MAHMOUD, JCA and I am in agreement with the reasoning and conclusions reached in disallowing this appeal as lacking in merit. I abide by any or all consequential orders made thereto.