LawCare Nigeria

Nigeria Legal Information & Law Reports

USO & ANOR v. AZOMANI (2021)

USO & ANOR v. AZOMANI

(2021)LCN/15857(CA)

In The Court Of Appeal

(ASABA JUDICIAL DIVISION)

On Monday, September 06, 2021

CA/AS/346/2017

Before Our Lordships:

Mohammed Ambi-Usi Danjuma Justice of the Court of Appeal

Biobele Abraham Georgewill Justice of the Court of Appeal

Abimbola Osarugue Obaseki-Adejumo Justice of the Court of Appeal

Between

1. MR. ANTHONY USO (Suing Through His Lawful Attorney MR. KENNETH USO) 2. JUSTINE USO (Suing Through His Next Friend MR. KENNETH USO) APPELANT(S)

And

LEONARD AZOMANI RESPONDENT(S)

 

RATIO

WHETHER OR NOT THE APPELLATE COURT CAN INTERFERE WITH THE EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE BY THE LOWER COURT

However, it is the law that it is only where it is found that the Court below had not properly carried out its sacred duty of dispassionately evaluating the totality of the evidence led, and had thus failed in this primary duty, and arrived at wrong findings and conclusions that an appellate Court would have the legal justification to intervene and re-evaluate the evidence on the printed record in order to make appropriate findings of facts in line with the dictates of justice to the parties. So, until an appellate Court arrives at such a conclusion the need for re-evaluation of evidence does not arise since an appellate Court has no business re-evaluating the evidence and interfering with correct findings of a trial Court. See Williams V. Tinubu (2014) All FWLR (Pt. 755) 200. See also Amuneke V. The State (1992) NWLR (Pt. 217) 347; Sule Asariyu V. The State (1987) 4 NWLR (Pt. 67) 709; Nkebisi V. State (2010) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1188) 471; Woluchem V. Gudi (1981) 5 SC. 291; Enang V. Adu (1981) 11-12 SC. 25; Abisi & Ors. V. Ekwealor & Anor (1993) 6 NWLR (Pt. 302) 643; Igago V. The State (1999) 12 SCNJ 140 @ p. 160; Amala V. State (2004) 12 NWLR (Pt. 888)520.

Thus, even where the appellate Court comes to the conclusion that there is need to re-evaluate the evidence, it must be borne in mind that evaluation and ascription of probative value to the evidence led is ordinarily the turf of the trial Court, and therefore, once a trial Court discharges that duty on the strength of the evidence placed before it, unless it arrives at perverse conclusions or findings not supported by the established evidence before it, an appellate Court should not interfere once the conclusions reached is correct, even if the reason turns out to be wrong. This is so because in law, an appellate Court is not so much concerned with the correctness or wrongness of the reasons adduced by a trial Court for its decisions or conclusions but rather more concerned with whether the decision reached or conclusion arrived at was correct or wrong and that is the law! See Alhaji Ndayako & Ors. V. Alhaji Dantoro & Ors.(2004) 13 NWLR (Pt. 889) 187 @ p. 198. See also Abaye V. Ofili (1986) 1 NWLR (Pt. 15) 134; Ukejianya V. Uchendu 18 WACA 46.
PER GEORGEWILL, J.C.A.

WAYS OF PROVING TITLE OF OWNERSHIP TO LAND

Generally, there are five methods of proof of title to land, namely: a. Evidence of traditional history of title; b. Production of genuine and valid documents of title; c. Numerous acts of ownership; d. Acts of possession over a long period of time, or, e. Acts of possession of adjacent land long enough to make it probable that the owner of the adjacent land is also the owner of the land in dispute. See Idundun V. Okumagba (1976) 6-10 SC 48. See also Arum V. Nwobodo (2013) AII FWLR (Pt. 688) 870 @p. 893; Nruamah V. Ebuzoeme (2013) AII FWLR (Pt. 681) 1426; Kano V. Maikaji (2013) AII FWLR (Pt. 673) 1856 @ pp. 1868-1869; Ojah V. Eviawure (2000) FWLR (Pt. 57) 163; Okorie V. Onyejewu (2001) FWLR (Pt. 41) 1820; Morenikeji V. Adegbosin (2003) 8 NWLR (Pt. 825) 612; Egbo V. Agbara (1997) 1 NWLR (Pt. 481) 293 @ p.303; Ani V. Ewo (2004) 1 SC (Pt. 11) 115 @ p. 133; Romaine V. Romaine (1992) NWLR (Pt. 235) 650; Ezukwu v. Ukachukwa (2000) 1 NWLR (pt 642) 657 @ p. 679. PER GEORGEWILL, J.C.A.

THE PROCESS OF EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE

In law, evaluation of evidence would entail and demand that the evidence proffered by the parties are assessed, appraised and weighed impartially on the imaginary scale of justice by the Court so as to give probative value or quality to it and there must be on the record, and very importantly too, how the Court arrived at its choice of preference of one piece of evidence to the other. See Alake V. State (1992) 9 NWLR (Pt. 265) 260. See also Dantiye & Anor V. Kanya & Ors (2008) LPELR-40094 (CA); Afemai Microfinance Bank Ltd V. Seacos Nig. Ltd (2014) LPELR – 22583 (CA).  PER GEORGEWILL, J.C.A.

BIOBELE ABRAHAM GEORGEWILL, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): This is an appeal against the judgment of the High Court of Delta State, Coram: C. O. Ogisi J., in Suit No. A/213/2012: Mr. Anthony Uso & Anor V. Leonard Azomani delivered on 12/1/2017, wherein the claims of the Appellants as Claimants against the Respondent as Defendants were dismissed, whilst the Counter-Claim of the Respondent against the Appellants was granted.

The Appellants were dissatisfied with the said judgment and had promptly appealed against it vide a Notice of Appeal filed on 19/1/2017 on one ground of appeal at pages 194-196 of the Record of Appeal. The Record of Appeal was transmitted to this Court on 31/7/2017 but was deemed as duly compiled and transmitted on 1/7/2020. Subsequently, an Amended Notice of Appeal on three grounds of appeal was filed on 13/2/2018 but was deemed as properly filed on 1/7/2020. The Appellants’ brief was filed on 13/2/2018 but was deemed as properly filed on 1/7/2020. The Respondent’s brief was filed on 23/10/2018 but was deemed as properly filed on 1/7/2020. The Appellants’ reply brief was filed on 18/6/2020 but was deemed as properly filed on 1/7/2020.

At the hearing of this appeal on 21/6/2021, E. C. Abednego Esq., learned counsel for the Appellants, appearing with H. C. Enyawuile Esq., adopted the Appellants’ brief and reply brief as their arguments and urged the Court to allow the appeal and set aside the judgment of the Court below and grant the claims of the Appellants against the Respondent. On his part, C. M. Ashibuogwu Esq., learned counsel for the Respondent, appearing with L. N. Dike Esq., and C. N. Olisah Esq., adopted the Respondent’s brief as their arguments and urged the Court to dismiss the appeal and affirm the judgment of the Court below.

By a Further Amended Joint Statement of Claim filed on 9/6/2015 the Appellants as Claimants claimed against the Respondent as Defendants the following reliefs, to wit:
1. A Declaration that the Claimants are the rightful owners of all that parcel of land measuring 100ft by 100ft covered by Land Allocation Documents issued by Elibujor Ogbe-Ogo Village Committee in favour of 1st and 2nd Claimants who are entitled to a portion of 50ft by 100ft each situate at “Core Area” behind NTA, Asaba, Delta State, demarcated with Beacon Nos. 925, 926, 927, 938 and 925, 926, 937 CY 938 and entitled to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy.
2. A Declaration that the Defendant is a trespasser to the Claimants’ land and liable to acts of trespass.
3. An Order of perpetual injunction restraining the Defendant, his agents and privies jointly and severally from laying ownership claim to the said land or entering into the land or dealing with the land in whatever manner.
4. General Damages of N15,000,000.00 against the Defendant for trespass, psychological and emotional trauma, inconveniences, expenses and losses occasioned by the acts of trespass. See pages 1-3 and 69 -87 of the Record of Appeal.

On his part, the Respondent as Defendant had by his Further Amended Statement of Defence/Counter-Claim filed on 13/6/2016 claimed against the Appellants the following reliefs, to wit:
1. A Declaration that the defendant is the person entitled to the right of occupancy to the piece or parcel of land in dispute known as Ogbodigbo Land, situated, lying and being behind N.T.A Asaba, which is well known to the parties in dispute.
2. An Order of perpetual injunction restraining the claimants, their family members assigns, agents, servants, privies and those deriving powers from them in whatever capacity from further entering, encroaching, trespassing and/or doing anything whatsoever on or with the land in dispute.
3. N10,000,000.00 being damages for trespass.
4. The cost of defending this action. See pages 113-116 of the Record of Appeal.

BRIEF STATEMENT OF FACTS
The case of the Appellants as Claimants before the Court below as can be gleaned from the averments in their pleadings and the evidence, both oral and documentary, as in the Record of Appeal was that they are indigenes of Elibujor Ogbe-Ogo Community and the rightful owners of the land in dispute known as Plot No.128 measuring 100ft by 100ft and demarcated with beacon numbers; 925, 926, 927 and 928 and situate at behind NTA Asaba, Delta State as their share of the Uso Family allotted to them by the Elibujor Ogbe-Ogo Village Committee in 2005 and covered by Land Allocation Document issued in 2005 and carved out of the Elibujor Ogbe-Ogo communal land as their share of the communal land earlier acquired by the Delta State Government but relinquished to Elibujor Ogbe-Ogo Community in 2005 through a public declaration of de-acquisition by the Delta State Government and officially gazetted in 2008.

​In pursuance to the de-acquisition of the Elibujor Ogbe-Ogo Community land in 2005, the Community took immediate possession of the land and started allocating to indigenes of the Community including the Appellants and other members of Uso family including Christopher Uso, Kenneth Uso, George Uso, Henry Uso and Edozien Uso whom were jointly allocated land and share common boundaries with their plots been known and identified as plots 128, 129 and 130 respectively. It is also their case that they exercised ownership rights over the land in dispute by planting economic trees on same until 2007 when the Respondent trespassed on their land, cleared the crops and erected a fence on the land, hence their action in Court against the Respondent. See pages 69-87 of the Record of Appeal.

​On the other hand, the case of the Respondent as Defendant before the Court below as can be gleaned from the averments in his pleadings and evidence, both oral and documentary as in the Record of Appeal was that the land in dispute which originally belonged to Elibujor Ogbe-Ogo Community of Asaba was acquired by the Delta State Government in 1991 and later de-acquired and returned to Elibujor Ogbe-Ogo Community in 2008 and while under the Government acquisition, it was plotted and allotted to members of the public upon application and were issued allocation paper, the pink paper. He bought the land in dispute in 2005 from one Elder Alex Odudu who was a Donee of a Power of Attorney and a Deed of Conveyance and Purchase Receipt was executed in his favour as he also bought two other plots in the same area when the land was still under Government acquisition.

However, in 2007 one Henry Uso trespassed on the land in dispute and upon his complaint to the Police was charged to the Magistrate Court, Asaba for malicious damage but the case was later withdrawn following an out of Court settlement when in 2007 the Elders of the Community called for a settlement of the matter between the him and the Appellants’ family and he was asked to pay the sum of N400,000.00 to the Community to regularize his title to the three plots of lands, including the land in dispute which he acquired from the State Government, which he did and paid the requested sum of N400,000 and a Deed of Transfer covering the three plots was executed in his favour and the Land Administration Committee of Elibujor Ogbe-Ogo Community thereafter allocated another plot of land known as Plot 149 jointly to the Appellants with a certificate issued to them. See pages 113-116 of the Record of Appeal.

The parties filed and exchanged pleadings and the matter proceeded to trial. In proof of their claims, the Appellants as Claimants testified through the 1st Appellant and called four witnesses, who testified as CW1, one Joseph lkechukwu Onuorah; CW2, one Kenneth Chinedu Uso; CW3 one Christopher Ndudi Onwuerne, and CW4 one George Emmanuel Uso and tendered several documents, admitted in evidence as Exhibits C1-C9 and closed their case. In his defence, the Respondent as Defendant testified for himself and called four called witnesses, who testified as DW1, one Adulphus Chukwuma Nwanze; DW2 one Patrick Onuora Amazoi; DW3 one Aghogho Origbo, and DW4 one Alex Odudu and tendered several documents, admitted in evidence as Exhibits D1-D18 and closed his case. At the close of the cases for the respective parties, they filed and exchanged written addresses which were duly adopted by their counsel and on 12/1/2017, the Court below delivered its judgment wherein it dismissed the claims of the Appellants against the Respondent, while granting the Counter–Claim of the Respondent against the Appellants, hence this appeal. See pages 171-193 and 194-196 of the Record of Appeal.

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION
In the Appellants’ brief, two issues were distilled as arising for determination from the three grounds of appeal, to wit:
1. Whether the Respondent successfully proved his Counter-Claim to the disputed land to warrant the Court below entering judgment in his favour and whether the Court below was right when it held that by Exhibit D2 the Respondent has established his root of title.
2. Whether the Appellants have proved their case before the Court below and possess a valid title to the land in dispute.

In the Respondent’s brief, the two issues for determination as distilled in the Appellants’ brief were adopted as the real issues arising for determination in this appeal.

My lords, upon due consideration of the pleadings on the issues as joined and the evidence as led by the parties before the Court below, as can be gleamed from the Record of Appeal and in the light of the findings in the judgment of the Court below, it does appear to me that the issues as nominated and agreed upon by the parties are apt but they can be easily harmonized, and I hereby so harmonize them, into just one sole issue, namely: “Who as between the Appellants as Claimants and the Respondent as Counter-Claimant before the Court below proved their title to the land in dispute and whether the Court below was right when it held that it was the Respondent that proved his title to the land in dispute as against the Appellants and thereby entered judgment in favor of the Respondent against the Appellants?”

It is my firm view that a due consideration of the above sole issue would encompass the due consideration and resolution of the two issues as nominated and agreed upon by the parties in their respective briefs in this appeal.

SOLE ISSUE
“Who as between the Appellants as Claimants and the Respondent as Counter-Claimant before the Court below proved their title to the land in dispute and whether the Court below was right when it held that it was the Respondent that proved his title to the land in dispute as against the Appellants and thereby entered judgment in favor of the Respondent against the Appellants?

APPELLANTS’ COUNSEL SUBMISSIONS
On his issue one, learned counsel for the Appellants had submitted that in civil cases, the burden of proof of the pleading rests on the party who substantially asserts the affirmative of the issue but in so doing, a party who seeks a relief in his favor must succeed on the strength of his case and not on the weakness of the other party and contended that in law, title to land or ownership of land may be proved in any of five ways: By traditional evidence; By production of duly authenticated documents of title; by acts of selling, leasing, renting out all or part of the land or farming on it or on a portion of it; by acts of long possession and enjoyment of land, and by proof of possession of connected or any 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 and urged the Court to hold that the Appellants duly proved their title to the land in dispute by allotment from the land owing family as members of the said family and to allow the appeal, set aside the perverse findings to the contrary by the Court below and grant the claims of the Appellants against the Respondent. Counsel relied on Ayanwale  V. Odusami (2012) 204 LRCN 198 @ pp. 211-212; Kodilinye V Odu (1935) 2 WACA 336; Abisi V. Ekwealor {1993) 6 NWLR {PT 302} PG 43; Salami V Gbodoolu (1997) 4 NSLR {PT 449} PG 377; Idundun V. Okumagbe (1976) 9-10 SC 224; Obuobipi V. Obuoforibo (2010) All FWLR (Pt. 546) 543 @ p. 560.

It was also submitted that the Respondent’s case as pleaded was founded on conveyance over the land in dispute as having been sold to him by an Allottee of the Delta State Government through a Donee of a Power of Attorney as buttressed by Exhibits D15, D16, D17 and particlularly D18 on which the Respondent’s case was built and contended that Exhibit D18 does not constitute a valid title, it being a mere application for the grant of a Right of Occupancy, as in Form C which is not a document of any title to the land in dispute, through which the Vendor to the Respondent came into ownership of the land in dispute which he allegedly transferred to the Respondent leading to the execution of Exhibits D16 and D17 and urged the Court to hold that Exhibit D18 being a mere application for a grant of Right of Occupancy and not the Right of Occupancy itself does not qualify as a valid document capable of transferring interest in land in the land in dispute to the Vendor of the Respondent capable of being transferred to the Respondent as required by law as found rightly by the Court below in that in law, one cannot give what one does not have but which Court below rather than dismissing the counter-claim of the Respondent had later summersulated to still award title to the Respondent over the said land in dispute erroneously relying on Exhibit D2, a document which at best was a mere atonement fees and not pleaded as the root of title to the land in dispute by the Respondent and to allow the appeal and set aside the perverse judgment of the Court below and to grant the claims of the Appellants against the Respondent while dismissing the counter-claim of the Respondent against the Appellants. Counsel referred to Black’s Law Dictionary, 2nd Edition and relied on Ogunleye V. Safejo(2010) All FWLR (Pt. 523) 1889 @ p. 1916; Eyo V. Onuoha (2011) All FWLR (Pt. 574) 1 @ pp. 38-39; Bello V. Sanda (2012) All FWLR (Pt. 636) 462 @ pp. 478-479; Okunowo V. Molajo (2011) All FWLR (Pt. 590) 1386 @ p. 1398; Okadigbo V. Ojechi (2011) All FWLR (Pt. 601) 1556 @ p. 637.

It was further submitted that Exhibit D2, was a mere fallout from Exhibits D16, D17 and D18, which having been found not to constitute any valid root of title, was on its own incapable of conferring any interest on the land in dispute on the Respondent as was erroneously held by the Court below and contended that in law Exhibit D2 is inconsequential and every acts of possession and ownership on the land in dispute exercised by the Respondent which gave birth to Exhibit D2 in consonance with Exhibits D16, D17 and D18, already held to be invalid by the Court below amounted to trespass in law in that the law which regards possession without a valid title as trespass since mere possession cannot confer title to land and urged the Court to so hold and allow the appeal, set aside the perverse findings of the Court below and dismiss the counter-claim of the Respondent. Counsel relied on Igwemadu V. Igwemadu (2011) All FWLR (Pt. 573) 1980 @ p. 2008; The Registered Trustees V. Nkume (2000) 1 NWLR (Pt. 747) 726.

On his issue two, learned counsel for the Appellants had submitted that the Appellants pleaded, relied on and led sufficient evidence in proof of Customary Grant as their root of title and source of ownership of the land in dispute as in Plot 128 vide Exhibits C1 and C2 and contended that the Appellants proved their title to the land in dispute as required of them by law by credible evidence showing that the Delta State Government de-acquired the Elibujor-Ogbeogo Community land in 2005 consequent upon which the Community allocated the land in dispute to the Appellants as indigenes of the Community and thereby issued them documents of allocation as in Exhibits C1 and C2, duly signed and issued by the Chairman and Secretary of the Allocation Committee who had the capacity to sign land allocation documents in Elibujor Community and which constitute valid root of title in proof of their ownership of the land in dispute and urged the Court to allow the appeal, set aside the perverse findings of the Court below and grant the claims of the Appellants against the Respondent as dictated by the entirety of the evidence led by the parties before the Court below. Counsel relied on Ogunleye V. Safejo (2010) All FWLR (Pt. 523) 1889 @ p. 1916.

It was also submitted that on the admitted evidence, it was proved that the Elibujor Ogbe-Ogo Community land was de-acquired in 2005, and not in 2008 as erroneously averred by the Respondent, by the Delta State Government and was duly allocated to indigenes of the Community, a fact even admitted by the Respondent and therefore requiring no further proof as in Exhibit D2 relied upon by the Respondent and contended that in law, the contents of a document tendered as an Exhibit is binding on the party whether the contents is favourable to him or against him and urged the Court to hold that the Respondent cannot dissociate himself from the contents of Exhibit D2 which is in favour of the Appellants and also material in establishing the crucial point of when the communal land was released to Elibujor Ogbe-Ogo Community being in 2005 and to allow the appeal, set aside the perverse judgment of the Court below and to grant the claims of the Appellants against the Respondent. Counsel relied Ogunsakin V. Ajidara (2010) All FWLR (Pt. 507) 109 @ p. 129; Egharevba V. Osagie (2010) All FWLR (Pt. 513) 1255 @ p. 1277; Ezemba V. Ibeneme (2004) 7 SCNJ 136; Uzoma V. Asodike (2010) All FWLR (Pt. 548) 853 @ p. 872.

RESPONDENT’S COUNSEL SUBMISSIONS
On his issue one, learned counsel for the Respondent had submitted that it is true as submitted by learned counsel for the Appellants that in law the onus of proof in civil action is on the party seeking a relief in his favour and in so doing, he must succeed on the strength of his case and not on the weakness of the other party and that it is also true that the law requires one of five ways or means of proving title to land but contended that the primary root of title to the land in dispute relied upon by the Respondent was the Deed of Conveyance as in Exhibit D2 executed in his favor by the Diokpa, the Hon Justice Uche Omo now late, and Principal members of the Elibujor Ogbe-Ogo Community, the indisputed original owners of the land in dispute as well as the fact of the earlier purchase of the said land in dispute from an allottee of the Government of Delta State through a Donee of Power of Attorney vide Exhibit D18 whilst the land in dispute was under its acquisition between 1991-2007 before it was de-acquired by virtue of Exhibit D1 dated 15/11/2007 and urged the Court to hold that the Court below was right when it held that land in dispute being part of the larger parcel of land of Elibujor Community was de-acquired and returned to the said Community vide Exhibit D1 dated 15/11/2007 and was duly conveyed to the Respondent by the Elibujor Community vide Exhibit D2 and thereby conferring title to the land in dispute on the Respondent and to dismiss the appeal and affirm the sound judgment of the Court below. Counsel relied on Ayanwale  V. Odusami (2012) 204 LRCN 198 @ pp. 211-212; Idundun V. Okumagba (1976) 9-10 SC 224; Obuobipi V. Obuoforibo (2010) All FWLR (Pt. 546) 543 @ p. 560.

​It was also submitted that by the combined effect of paragraph 3, 4 and 8 of the Respondent’s pleadings the Respondent was put in possession of the land in dispute by virtue of Exhibits D16, D17 and D18 whilst the Elibujor Community the original owners of the land gave him title to the land in dispute vide Exhibit D2 and contended that the Court below carried out a proper review, evaluated and appraisal of the entirety of the evidence led by the parties and came to the correct finding and conclusion that the Appellants failed to make out their alleged root of title to the land in dispute since as at 2005 when they alleged that the Elibujor Ogbe-Ogo Community allotted the land in dispute to them vide Exhibits C1 and C2 the said land was still under the acquisition of the Government of Delta State and was therefore, not available to be allotted by the Elibujor Ogbe-Ogo Community to the Appellants since the law is ‘nemo dat quod non habet’ and urged the Court to so hold and to dismiss the appeal for lacking in merit and affirm the sound judgment of the Court below. Counsel relied on Apatira & Ors V. Lagos Island Local Government & Ors (2006) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1007) 46 @ p. 69.

​On his issue two, learned counsel for the Respondent had submitted that the basis for the claim of title by the Appellants is predicated on their purported allotment by the Elibujor Ogbe-Ogo Land Committee headed by CW1 and made in 2005 vide Exhibits C1 and C2 and that in law to succeed in a claim for declaration of title to land the party seeking the declaration must satisfy the Court as to the precise nature of the title he claims as to whether it is title by virtue of original ownership, customary grant, conveyance, sale under customary law, long possession or otherwise and must proceed to lead credible, cogent and sufficient evidence establishing title or the nature of title he claims and contended that the claim of the Appellants that the Delta State Government de-acquired the Elibujor Ogbe-Ogo community land, including the land in dispute, in 2005 was not substantiated by any credible evidence since by 2005 the land in dispute was still very much the active acquisition of the Delta State Government and was only de-acquired in 2008 vide Exhibit D1 and urged the Court to so hold and to affirm the findings to that effect by the Court below and dismiss the appeal for lacking in merit. Counsel relied on Ogunleye V. Safejo (2010) All FWLR (Pt. 523) 1889 @ p. 1916; Adeniyi V. Oroja (2006) All FWLR (Pt. 324) 1839 @ p. 1864; Yusuf V. Oyetunde & Ors (1998) 12 NWLR (Pt. 579) 483 @ p. 493; Macfoy V. UAC Ltd

It was also submitted that issues were joined on the validity of Exhibits C1 and C2 signed and issued by the Chairman and Secretary of the Allocation Committee of Elibujor Community and contended that by virtue of Exhibit D2 it is clear that the signatories to Exhibits C1 and C2 are not the principal members of the Elibujor Ogbe-Ogo Community with the authority to validly allot the Community land to any person and therefore was invalid and conferred no title to the land in dispute on the Appellants and urged the Court to hold that the authority to allot the land of the Community to any person lies with the Diokpa, the Head and the other Principal members of the Elinujor Community which duly issued Exhibit D2 to the Respondent and thereby confirmed title to the land in dispute on the Respondent. Counsel referred to Section 123 of the Evidence Act, 2011 and relied on Egbunike & Anor V. ACB Ltd (1995) 2 SCNJ 58.

It was further submitted that the Court below never at any time accepted that the land in dispute was de-acquired and returned to the Elibujor Ogbe-Ogo Community by the Delta State Government in in 2005 and contended that there was no miscarriage of justice in the entire gamut of the judgment of the Court below and urged the Court to hold that the issue of whether or not Plot 149 was allocated to the Appellants was of no moment as it was never in issue before the Court below not being part of the cause of action and therefore, extraneous and the Court need not concern itself with such an extraneous issue and inapplicability of Section 149 (d) of the Evidence Act, 2011 and to dismiss the appeal for lacking in merit and affirm the sound judgment of the Court below.

APPELLANTS’ COUNSEL REPLY SUBMISSIONS
In his reply submissions, learned counsel for the Appellants merely rehashed and reiterated his earlier submissions in the Appellants’ brief, which is not the purpose and purport of a reply brief. The reply brief, which must be succinct and respond to new points or fresh issues raised in the Respondent’s brief, is not and cannot be an avenue for the Appellant to re-argue his appeal or merely to have second bite at the cherry. The reply brief is for the serious business of answering to new points or fresh issues raised in the Respondent’s brief which were not covered by the submissions in the Appellant’s brief. It need not and ought not to be filed as just a matter of course even where there is nothing new or fresh in the Respondent’s brief to respond to by the Appellant. The thinking that unless a reply brief is filed, even where it is completely unnecessary, it would mean that the Respondent has had the last word is not true and must therefore, be discouraged. The appeal process is not just about who had the last word but in whose favor is the evidence and the law relevant to the issues in contention between the parties in the appeal. See Order 19 Rules 5 (1) of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2016, where it is provided thus:
“The Appellant may also, if necessary, within fourteen days of service on him of the Respondent’s brief, file and serve or cause to be served on the Respondent a reply brief which shall deal with all new points arising from the Respondent’s brief”
See Olafisoye V. FRN 2004 1SC Pt. 11 27; Ikine V. Edjerode (2001) 12 SC (Pt. 11) 94; Longe V. FBN (2010) 2-3 SC 61; Okpala V. Ibeme (1989) 2 NWLR (Pt. 102) 208; Ajileye V. Fakayode (1998) 4 NWLR (Pt. 545) 184; Agwasim V. Ejivumerwerhaye (2001) 9 NWLR (Pt. 718) 395; Registered Trustees, Ikoyi Club 1938 V. Mr. Timothy Ikujuni (2019) LPELR-47373 (CA).

I have gone through the gamut of the reply brief of the Appellant and I find that it failed to meet the requirements of a reply brief. Indeed, it brought nothing seriously worth anything to the table in this appeal that has not already been submitted upon in the Appellant’s brief. However, in the interest of substantial justice, I shall proceed to review the reply submissions albeit briefly.

In his reply submissions, learned counsel for the Appellants had submitted that it was erroneous for the learned counsel for the Respondent to contend that the Respondent relied on Exhibit D2 as his root of title rather than Exhibits D16, 17 and D18 since in law the Respondent cannot deviate from a sacrosanct and unchallenged finding of fact that Exhibit D18 was invalid or seek to undermine it through the backdoor except by means of a Cross-Appeal wherein he ought to challenge the said findings of the Court below and urged the Court to hold that in law, a party will not be allowed to make a case at the Court of Appeal that is different or varies substantially from the case he made at the Court below and to allow the appeal, set aside the perverse judgment of the Court below warding title to the land in dispute to the Respondent and enter judgment for the Appellants as per their claims before the Court below. Counsel relied on Olukoga & Ors V. Fatunde (1996) 7 NWLR (Pt. 62) 516; Godwin Obi (Okoronkwo) V. Chief Hyginus Ugbor (2018) LPELR-44420 (CA); AGI V. PDP & Ors. (2016) 12 SC (Pt. 1) 74 @ p. 78; Ajide V. Kelani (1985) LPELR-302 (SC); All Nigeria Peoples Party & Anor V. Peoples Democratic Party & Ors (2006) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1009) 467; Crown Flour Mills Ltd V. Olokun (2007) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1077) 254 @ p. 285; Ipinlaiye V. Olutokun (1996) 6 NWLR (Pt. 453) 148; Usman & Anor V. FRN (2018) LPELR-45629 (CA); Momodu V. Momoh (1991) 2 LRCN 437;

​It was also submitted that by Exhibit D2 and the reference that ought to be drawn from same in determining the status of the land in dispute as at 2005 and who has a better title between both parties, the recital recognizes that the land in dispute forms part of the land which was originally acquired by the Delta State Government in 1991 but was later released to the family by the Delta State Government in 2005 and contended that this clearly buttresses the case of the Appellants that they acquired the said land in 2005 from the Elibujor Community after it was de-acquired by the Delta State Government in 2005 and urged the Court to hold that the fact that it took another three years for the Delta State Government to gazette the de-acquisition did not change the fact that the de-acquisition took place in 2005 since in law equity regards as done that which ought to be done and to allow the appeal and set aside the perverse judgment of the Court below and grant the claims of the Appellants against the Respondent. Counsel relied on Walsh V. Lonsdale (1882) 21 Ch.D 9; Obaseki V. Ukhuegbe (2010) LPELR-5084(CA); Ohiaeri V. Yusuf And 3 Ors (2009) 2 NMLR 313; Mallam Yusuf Olagunju V. Chief E.O. Adesoye & Anor (2009) LPELR-2555 (SC); Gadzama & Anor V. Adamu & Ors (2014) LPELR-24363(CA); A.G. Rivers V. A.G. Akwa-Ibom State (2011) 8 NWLR (Pt. 124) @ Pp. 186–187; Fakorede V. AG. Western State (1972) 1 All NLR (Pt. I) 178; Ladega V. Durosimi (1978) 3 SC 91.

RESOLUTION OF THE SOLE ISSUE
My lords, the sole issue for determination, encompassing Grounds 1, 2 and 3 of the Amended Notice and Grounds of Appeal filed on 13/2/2018 but was deemed as properly filed on 1/7/2020, frontally calls into question the review of the pleadings, evaluation of evidence, findings and decisions of the Court below as to whether or not proper evaluations were carried out and whether or not the findings and decisions arrived at the by the Court below were correct on the issues as joined by the parties in their pleadings and the evidence led thereon.

While on the one hand, the Appellants had contended that the Court below did not carry out proper evaluation of the evidence and thereby arrived at some wrong findings of facts leading to its perverse decision to the grant the counter-claim of the Respondent against the Appellants, on the other hand the Respondent had contended that the Court below carried out proper evaluation of the totality of the evidence led in line with the pleadings of the parties and did arrived at proper finding of facts and therefore, reached the correct decisions in granting the counter-claims of the Respondent against the Appellants whilst dismissing the unproved claims of the Appellants against the Respondent.

Now, when in an appeal it is alleged that the judgment is against the weight of evidence, as in Ground One of the Amended Notice of Appeal filed on 13/2/2018 and deemed properly filed on 1/7/2020, it is simply a call on this Court to review and re-evaluate the evidence in the printed record to determine if the Court below had properly evaluated the evidence and made correct findings borne out by the evidence as led by the parties. However, it is the law that it is only where it is found that the Court below had not properly carried out its sacred duty of dispassionately evaluating the totality of the evidence led, and had thus failed in this primary duty, and arrived at wrong findings and conclusions that an appellate Court would have the legal justification to intervene and re-evaluate the evidence on the printed record in order to make appropriate findings of facts in line with the dictates of justice to the parties. So, until an appellate Court arrives at such a conclusion the need for re-evaluation of evidence does not arise since an appellate Court has no business re-evaluating the evidence and interfering with correct findings of a trial Court. See Williams V. Tinubu (2014) All FWLR (Pt. 755) 200. See also Amuneke V. The State (1992) NWLR (Pt. 217) 347; Sule Asariyu V. The State (1987) 4 NWLR (Pt. 67) 709; Nkebisi V. State (2010) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1188) 471; Woluchem V. Gudi (1981) 5 SC. 291; Enang V. Adu (1981) 11-12 SC. 25; Abisi & Ors. V. Ekwealor & Anor (1993) 6 NWLR (Pt. 302) 643; Igago V. The State (1999) 12 SCNJ 140 @ p. 160; Amala V. State (2004) 12 NWLR (Pt. 888)520.

Thus, even where the appellate Court comes to the conclusion that there is need to re-evaluate the evidence, it must be borne in mind that evaluation and ascription of probative value to the evidence led is ordinarily the turf of the trial Court, and therefore, once a trial Court discharges that duty on the strength of the evidence placed before it, unless it arrives at perverse conclusions or findings not supported by the established evidence before it, an appellate Court should not interfere once the conclusions reached is correct, even if the reason turns out to be wrong. This is so because in law, an appellate Court is not so much concerned with the correctness or wrongness of the reasons adduced by a trial Court for its decisions or conclusions but rather more concerned with whether the decision reached or conclusion arrived at was correct or wrong and that is the law! See Alhaji Ndayako & Ors. V. Alhaji Dantoro & Ors.(2004) 13 NWLR (Pt. 889) 187 @ p. 198. See also Abaye V. Ofili (1986) 1 NWLR (Pt. 15) 134; Ukejianya V. Uchendu 18 WACA 46.

Now, the duty of a trial Court to consider, appraise, review and evaluate all relevant and admitted evidence, whether oral and/or documentary, placed before it before arriving at its findings and decision is a paramount as well as a sacrosanct one which cannot under any guise be abandoned or jettisoned by a trial Court. Thus, where a trial Court fails in this duty, then it fails its entire duty of impartial adjudication between the contending parties before it and the appellate Court if so moved is under a bounden duty to intervene to evaluate the evidence as in the record and make relevant findings and reach appropriate decisions as borne out by the evidence in the interest of justice to the parties. See Olufosoye V. Olorunfemi (1989) 1 SC (Pt. 1) 29. See also Tangale Traditional Council V. Fawu (2001) 17 NWLR (Pt. 742) 330 @ pp. 335-336.

In law, evaluation of evidence would entail and demand that the evidence proffered by the parties are assessed, appraised and weighed impartially on the imaginary scale of justice by the Court so as to give probative value or quality to it and there must be on the record, and very importantly too, how the Court arrived at its choice of preference of one piece of evidence to the other. See Alake V. State (1992) 9 NWLR (Pt. 265) 260. See also Dantiye & Anor V. Kanya & Ors (2008) LPELR-40094 (CA); Afemai Microfinance Bank Ltd V. Seacos Nig. Ltd (2014) LPELR – 22583 (CA).

So, as between the Appellants, who were the Claimants before the Court below and the Respondent, who was the Defendant/Counter-Claimant before the Court below, who is entitled to the ownership of the land in dispute? Was the Court below right when it held that as between the Appellants and the Respondent, it was the Respondent who proved and was thus entitled to a grant of title to the land in dispute? Does this finding by the Court below flow from the pleadings and the evidence led by the parties as in the Record of Appeal?

In proof of their claims, the Appellants testified through the 1st Appellant and called four witnesses. CW1 was one Joseph lkechukwu Onuorah. He adopted his statement on oath made on 20/11/14 as his evidence in chief and tendered Exhibits C1 and C2 in evidence. He was thoroughly cross-examined. He stated that he issued Exhibits C1 and C2 to the Appellants but admitted that there is the Head of the Elibujor–Ogbe Ogo family known as Diokpa of which he is not and that under Asaba native law and custom, all land of the Elibujor Ogbe-Ogo family is under the custody of the Diokpa of the family who in 2005 was Hon. Justice Uche Omo, JSC, Rtd. He also admitted that as at 2005, the land in dispute was still under the acquisition of the Government of Delta Stelle but that it was de-acquired in 2008 by the Delta State Government and released to the Elibujor Ogbe-Oogo family and that before 2008, the said Community and the Delta State Government were negotiating for its release to the Community. CW2 was one Kenneth Chinedu Uso. He adopted his statement on oath made on 7/5/15 and a further statement on oath made on 9/6/15 as his evidence in Chief and tendered Exhibits C3, C4 and C5 in evidence. He was thoroughly cross-examined. He maintained that the land in dispute was released to the Elibujor – Ogbe Ogo Community in 2005 by the Delta State Government but does not know if the said Community applied to the Delta State Government for the de-acquisition of the land in dispute. He denied any settlement by the said Community of the dispute between the parties in 2008 or in favor of the Respondent and maintained that no member of the said Community issued to the Respondent a Deed of Conveyance over the land in dispute. He admitted that the authority of the Diokpais higher in the said Community than that of the Chairman but he does not know the late Justice Uche Omo and if he was the Diokpa of Elibujor- Ogbe Oogbo family.

​CW3 was one Christopher Ndudi Onwuerne. He adopted his statement on oath made on 9/6/15 as his evidence in Chief and tendered Exhibit C6 in evidence. He was thoroughly cross-examined and he stated he was aware that around 2005 the land was de-acquired by Delta State Government and released to the owners but he does not know the date the land was de-acquired. CW4 was one George Emmanuel Uso. He adopted his statement on oath made on 19/10/12 and further statement on oath made on 14/7/15 as his evidence in chief and tendered Exhibits C7, C8 and C9 in evidence. He was thoroughly cross-examined and he maintained that it was the Land Committee of Elibujor–Ogbe Oogo Community that issued Exhibit C8 and that as at 2005 the land in dispute had been released to the said Community as it was de-acquired in 2005 but it was so gazetted in 2008. He denied that the land was acquired in 1991 by the Delta State Government but he does not know why the said Community applied for de-acquisition. He admiited that the Diokpa must be aware before land is allocated or alienated by the Lands Committee but he is not aware that the Diokpa gave a Deed of Conveyance to the Respondent over the land in dispute.

​The 1st Appellant adopted his statement on oath made on 18/11/13 and his further Statement on oath made on 9/6/15 as his evidence in chief and was thoroughly cross-examined. He maintained that as at 2005, he was in Germany and upon the call of his brother that the family land was being allotted he came down to Asaba in December, 2004 and stayed on till March 2005 when the land in dispute was allotted to the Appellants and maintained that as at 2005, the land in dispute was no longer under the acquisition of the Delta State Government as the Elibujor–Ogbe Ogo family started the allocation of the family land in 2003 but he does not know if it was in 2008 that the land of the said family was returned to it by the Delta State Government as he does not know for how long the process of returning the land to the family took though the release of the land to the said family was officially gazetted. However, he does not know who was the Diokpa of the said family between 2005 and 2007 and was also not aware of any Deed of Conveyance issued to the Respondent by the said family over the land in dispute but admitted that it is the Diokpa and the Principal Members of the Elibujor-Ogbe Ogo family along with the Chairman that decides issues on land matters in the family.

​In his defence, the Respondent testified and also called four witnesses. DW1 was one Adulphus Chukwuma Nwanze. He adopted his statement on oath made on 18/11/13 as his evidence in chief and was thoroughly cross-examined. He maintained that he executed Exhibit D2 over the land in dispute, plot 128 in 2008 as Chairman of Elibujor Ogbe-Ogo family Land Committee. DW2 was one Patrick Onuora Amazoi. He adopted his statement on oath made on 18/11/13 as his evidence in chief and was thoroughly cross-examined. He maintained that he was one of those who executed Exhibit D2 in favor of the Respondent over the land in dispute. He was the Secretary as well as the Spokesman to the Elibujor–Ogbe Ogo Community and maintained that the responsibility of authenticating and validating land allocation lies with the Diokpa of the Elibujor-Ogbe Ogo Community and that the said Community cannot allocate one plot of land to two individuals.

DW3 was one Aghogho Origbo. He adopted his statement on oath made on 7/6/16 as his evidence in chief and was thoroughly cross-examined. He stated that as at 2005, he was the Personal Assistant to the Chairman of the Land Use Allocation Committee in the Ministry of Lands, Surveys and Urban Development of Delta State but was not aware of the transaction between the Delta State Government and the Elibujor Ogbe–Ogo family in respect of the de-acquisition and/or return of the undeveloped land in the Core Area of Asaba Delta State Government but he is aware that the Respondent has three parcels of land, one of which is the land in dispute. DW4 was one Alex Odudu, an Estate Surveyor and Valuer. He adopted his statement on oath made on 8/7/16 as his evidence in chief and tendered Exhibits D15, D16, D17 and D18 in evidence. He was thoroughly cross-examined. He maintained that the Respondent has three different parcels of land in Elibujor Ogbe–Ogo Communal land, including the land in dispute which measures 1060.042 square metres over which he was granted Right of Occupancy as in Exhibits D15 and D17. He was aware of the release of undeveloped land back to the Elibujor-Ogbe Ogo Community by the Delta State Government.

The Respondent testified on his own behalf and adopted his statement on oath made on 12/2/13 as his evidence in chief and tendered Exhibits D3, D5, D6, D7, D8, D9, D10, D11, D12, D13 and D14 in evidence. He was thoroughly cross-examined. He admitted that he is not a member of the Elibujor-Ogbe Ogo family and maintained that the Appellants being member of the Elibujor-Ogbe Ogo family were parties to Exhibit D2, the Deed of Conveyance executed in 2008 in his favor by the Diokpa and Principal members of the Appellants’ family in respect of the land in dispute. He denied being issued with a Right of Occupancy by the Delta State Government over the land in dispute but maintained that he has been in possession of the land in dispute since 2005. He clarified that Exhibit D2 was not signed by Hon. Justice Uche Omo because he died before the conclusion of the settlement but was signed by the succeeding Diokpa.

My lords, it was on the strength of the above pleadings and evidence, both oral and documentary, that the Court below had in its judgment delivered on 12/1/2017 stated and held inter alia thus:
“…It is also not in dispute that some portions of the Elibujor/Ogbogo Communal land, which encompasses the land in dispute was acquired by the Delta State Government in 1991 and de-acquired formally vide Exhibit D1, dated 15th November, 2007 and printed in 2008. Where the dispute lies is at to whether or not the said de-acquired land was released to the community by the Delta State Government and formalized in 2007…The question that comes to mind at this point is whether the Elibujor/Ogbogo Community had title in the said land to pass to the Claimants in 2005? The answer to my mind is in the negative. I say so because from the evidence of CW1 under cross–examination, in 2005 the land in dispute was under the acquisition of the Government of Delta State… DW1 and DW2 further stated that between the year 2003 and 2008, the Elibujor Community had series of meetings with the Delta State Government and in 2008 the said Government de-acquired about 38 hectares of land vide Exhibit D1… it is clear that the evidence of DW1 and DW2 is tandem with Exhibit D1. Exhibit D1 clearly supports the oral evidence of DW1 and DW2 and as such reliable. It is therefore my firm view that the Elibujor Community Land which was returned or de-acquired by the Delta State Government was done vide Exhibit D1 which was issued on 15/11/2007… The title to the land of the Elibujor/Ogbogo Community or family, which was under acquisition of the Delta State Government between 1991 and 2007 when it was de-acquired, vide Exhibit D1, extinguished, for the period… It is therefore my view that as at 2005, the land in dispute was still under the acquisition of the Delta State Government… The Defendant is in possession as can be deduced from the evidence before the Court, the Defendant has against the Claimants proved a better title than the Claimants… I therefore hold that the Defendant is entitled to the declaration sought.” See pages 171-193 of the Record of Appeal

Now, from the pleadings and evidence led, the case of the Appellants was that the land in dispute was released to the Elibujor/Ogbogo Community in 2005 and that following the release, the said Community through the Diokpa set up a Land Allocation Committee headed by CW1 and the land was plotted out and one plot of land was allocated to each eligible male member of the said Community in 2005, including the Appellants who are male members, father and son, of the said Community vide Exhibits C1 and C2.

​On the other hand, from the pleadings and evidence led, the case of the Respondent was that when the land of the Elibujor/Ogbogo Community, including the land in dispute, was acquired from the said Community by the Delta State Government in 1991, plots of the said land were allocated to interested Members of the public and the land in dispute was allocated to one Prince Godwin Ejinyere vide Exhibit D18 dated 4/11/2004 and from whom the Respondent bought the said land in dispute through his attorney, the DW4, vide Exhibits D16 and D17, the Purchase Receipt and Deed of Conveyance dated 20/7/2005 while Exhibit D15 is the Power of Attorney donated to the DW4 and he took possession of the land which was vacant, built a wall fence around it, mounted a gate, started the building of a three bedroom flat which was at DPC level without any challenge, until 2007 when the Appellants through one Henry Uso trespassed on the land claiming that the land was allotted to them by the Elibujor/Ogbogo Community and damaged some of the Respondent’s properties on the land. It was also the case of the Respondent that he reported the trespass and damage to the Police and the said Henry Uso was charged to Court but upon his arraignment, the elders of Elibujor Ogbe Ogo Community intervened and the matter was amicably settled out of Court and in September 2007, the Elders and Members of the said Elibujor/Ogbogo Community held a meeting in the house of Diokpa, Justice Uche Omo where he was asked to pay the sum of N400,000 to regularize his title to the three plots he bought since the allocation of the land in dispute was from the Delta State Government and the development he had done on the land, which amount he duly paid and was receipted for and a Deed of Conveyance duly executed in his favor vide Exhibit D2 by the said Elibujor/Ogbogo Community covering the three plots, including the land in dispute.

My lords, in law where a Claimant, or a Counter-Claimant, claims a declaration of title to land, in order to succeed, he must plead and lead credible evidence in support of the root of title he relies upon. 

Generally, there are five methods of proof of title to land, namely: a. Evidence of traditional history of title; b. Production of genuine and valid documents of title; c. Numerous acts of ownership; d. Acts of possession over a long period of time, or, e. Acts of possession of adjacent land long enough to make it probable that the owner of the adjacent land is also the owner of the land in dispute. See Idundun V. Okumagba (1976) 6-10 SC 48. See also Arum V. Nwobodo (2013) AII FWLR (Pt. 688) 870 @p. 893; Nruamah V. Ebuzoeme (2013) AII FWLR (Pt. 681) 1426; Kano V. Maikaji (2013) AII FWLR (Pt. 673) 1856 @ pp. 1868-1869; Ojah V. Eviawure (2000) FWLR (Pt. 57) 163; Okorie V. Onyejewu (2001) FWLR (Pt. 41) 1820; Morenikeji V. Adegbosin (2003) 8 NWLR (Pt. 825) 612; Egbo V. Agbara (1997) 1 NWLR (Pt. 481) 293 @ p.303; Ani V. Ewo (2004) 1 SC (Pt. 11) 115 @ p. 133; Romaine V. Romaine (1992) NWLR (Pt. 235) 650; Ezukwu v. Ukachukwa (2000) 1 NWLR (pt 642) 657 @ p. 679.

Going by their pleadings, it would appear that the Appellants relied on allotment to them vide Exhibits C1 and C2 of the land in dispute by the Elubihor Ogbe-Ogo Community as their share of the communal land following its de-acquisition in 2005 vide Exhibit D1after its earlier acquisition between 1991-2005 by the Delta State Government in 1991 vide Exhibit D6, Gazette No. 1 Vol. 1 of 10/10/1991. On the other hand, by his pleadings, it would appear that the Respondent relied on two means for his root of title to the land in dispute, namely; by purchase from an allottee of the Delta State Government to whom the land in dispute was allocated whilst under acquisition of the Delta State Government vide Exhibits D16, D17 and D18, as well as by purchase from the Diokpa and Principal Members of the Elubihur Ogbe-Ogo Community after its de-acquisition vide Exhibit D2 for the purchase price of N400,000.00. See pages 69-79 for the Further Amended Joint Statement of Claim and pages 113-116 for the Further Amended Statement of Defence.

​It is the light of the above pleadings and findings by the Court below on the evidence led by the parties that Exhibit D18, being merely an application for the grant of a Right of Occupancy does not amount to any valid title in land transferable to the Respondent by his Vendor, that the Appellants had contended vehemently that the Respondent having failed to prove this root of title vide Exhibit D18 was not entitled to a grant of title to the land in dispute as was, in their view, done erroneously by the Court below in that Exhibit D2 has no life or validity of its own except with reference to Exhibit D18, already found to be invalid. However, the Respondent would hear of no such contentions and had with equal vehemence contended that he relied on both Exhibits D2 and D18 as his root of title to the land in dispute and having sufficiently and credibly made out his root of title to the land in dispute vide Exhibit D2, the Court below was perfectly right when it granted title to the land in dispute in his favor.

My lords, in dealing with the evaluation of the evidence, findings and conclusion reached thereon by the Court below in the light of the call on this Court by the Appellants to re-evaluate the evidence on the printed record, three crucial questions must first be answered, namely: A. What is the root of title relied upon by the Appellants and/or the Respondent from their pleadings and the evidence led thereon?, B. Who as between the Appellants and the Respondent proved and is thus entitled to the title to the land in dispute by credible and cogent evidence as required by law? and C. Was the Court below right to have granted title to the land in dispute to the Respondent as against the Appellants?<br< p=”” style=”box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;”> </br<>

In law, a Claimant or a Counter–Claimant to title to land in dispute is not required to prove more than one of the five ways of proof of title to land, but where he fails to satisfy the Court on any of one or more of the five ways of proof of title he relies on as his root of title, then his claim to title to land must fail. In other words, a Claimant or Counter–Claimant can and is at liberty to rely on more than one of the five ways of proof of title. He is not under any compulsion to rely only on one of the five ways of proof of title to land. All that is paramount and required of him is to adduce sufficient, cogent and credible evidence in proof of either one or more of the five ways of proof of title relied upon by him. It is thus not the law that where a Claimant or Counter-Claimant relies on two or more of the five ways of proof of title, then once he fails to establish one of the ways he relied upon, then his claim to title must fail even where he establishes the second or other means of proof of title relied upon by him. It is only where he relies on only one of the five ways and fails to substantiate the only root of title he relies upon that his claim must fail as any other acts, being secondary to his primary root of title, would then become acts of trespass on the land in dispute. See Idundun V. Okumagba (1976) 9-10 SC 27. See also Ezukwu V. Ukachukwa(2000) 1 NWLR (pt 642) 657 @ p. 679; Chief Elemoro & Anor V. Chief Abiodun (2014) LPELR 23195; Piaro V. Tenalo (1976) 12 SC 31 @ p. 37; Dabo V. Abdullahi (2005) LPELR-905 (SC).
It needs to be pointed out at once that in law a party claiming title to land has open to him one or more of five methods of proving title to land and any one of which if sufficiently made out would suffice as none of the five ways or means or methods is higher than the other. The party may also rely on a combination of one or more of the five methods in proof of his title to land. However, where a party relies on more than one of the five means or ways or methods of proof of title to land, he is not under any obligation to prove all the methods relied upon before he could succeed once he is able to prove sufficiently even one of the ways or means or methods relied upon by him that would suffice to ground his claim for title to land.
​Let me explain! Where for instance, a party claiming declaration of title to land relies on production of title documents and evidence of traditional history as his roots of title to the land in dispute but at the trial was only able to prove his title by production of valid title documents, his case would still succeed notwithstanding the fact that he had not been able to prove the other method of evidence of traditional history also relied upon by him as his root of title. The above is so because, as I had earlier stated and which is the trite position of the law, a party claiming title to land can succeed in his claim by proof of any one of the five methods of proof of title to land. He need not prove more than one root of tile to succeed. It is thus, immaterial whether he had relied on one, two or more of the five methods or means or ways of proof of title to land, since proof by any one of the five methods or means or ways of proof of title to land, sufficiently to the satisfaction of the Court, would suffice. See Ezukwu V. Ukachukwa (2000) 1 NWLR (pt 642) 657 @ p. 679.

​My lords, it seems a little odd, or should I rather say strange, to me that the Appellants who had made a heavy weather of Exhibit D2, before the Court below as in the Record of Appeal, as not being capable of conferring any title to the land in dispute on the Respondent would appear to have jettisoned the crux of that contention to now contend in this appeal that the Respondent did not rely on Exhibit D2 at all as a root of his title to land and that having failed to establish the validity of Exhibit D18, as found by the Court below and which finding is not cross-appealed against by the Respondent, his claim must fail. The Appellants knew and joined issues with the Respondent and they were thus not left in any dark or guessing as to the roots of title the Respondent relied upon before the Court below as being by purchase from an allottee of the Delta State Government whilst the land in dispute was under acquisition vide Exhibits D16, D17 and D18 as well as by purchase from the Diokpa and Principal Members of the Elubijor Ogbe-Ogo Community vide Exhibit D2, cannot now change the goal post, and would not be allowed such luxury even if they so intend, to contend that the Court below ought to have dismissed the Respondent’s counter-claim merely for failure to make out his reliance on Exhibit D18 notwithstanding the validity or otherwise of Exhibit D2, which was and still is clearly an integral part of the root of title as pleaded and relied upon by the Respondent.

My lords, the law is now well settled that notwithstanding the difficulty of discerning absolute truth by the mechanism of litigation and judicial discernment hinged upon evidence before the Court and irrespective of the imperfections of men, the litigation process is aimed at finding out the truth according to law, Therefore, a party worthy of any favourable consideration by the Court must endeavour to be consistent in both the facts he pleads and the evidence he leads in proof of those facts and counsel are also required to be consistent in the case they present for their cleints, both before the trial Court and this Court. Thus, whilst a party will not be allowed to present and rely on evidence which are inconsistent with the case he has pleaded, so also should a counsel not indulge himself in putting forward or holding unto obviously inconsistent positions or presentations in his submissions either on behalf of his client or against the adverse party. Indeed, consistency is the very first hallmark of truth in a case and also of excellence of a legal practitioner. I shall say no more on this! See Ajide V. Kelani (1985) 3 NWLR (Pt. 12) 248; Ezemba V. Ibeneme (2009) 14 NWLR (Pt. 789) 623.

Having remarked as above, let me now consider, whether or not the Respondent proved his title to the land in dispute as found by the Court below? This would involve a consideration of the contentions by the Appellants that the Respondent failed to prove his title to the land in dispute. Interestingly, the Appellants who themselves are the Claimants before the Court below placed so much less premium on proving their own claim to title to the land in dispute and focused so much attention rather on the counter-claim to title to the land in dispute by the Respondent even to the obvious neglect and detriment of their own claim to title of the land in dispute. It is sad! However, since the Appellants had made the consideration of the counter-claim of the Respondent a priority over and above their own claims as Claimants before the Court below, I intend to commence my consideration of the sole issue for determination with the counter-claim of the Respondent.

Now, it is clear from a holistic reading and consideration of the pleadings of the Respondent as Defendant/Counter-Claimant before the Court below that the Respondent relied on Exhibits D16, D17 and D18 on the one hand and Exhibit D2 on the other hand in establishing his title to the land in dispute. In proof thereof, he called DW1 and DW2 who are both Elders, Chairman and Secretary of the Elibujor Ogbe-Ogo Village land Administration Committee, Asaba who testified that between 2003 and 2008 the Elibujor Ogbe–Ogo Community had series of meetings with the Delta State Ministry of Lands, Survey and Urban development and other Government Officials in pursuit of the de–acquisition of the land earlier acquired by the Delta State Government in 1991 vide Exhibit D6.

The DW1 and DW2, who should know and were not in any way shaken under cross-examination, also testified that it was in 2008 that the Delta State Government de-acquired about 38 hectares of the land of Elibujor Ogbe-Ogo Village earlier acquired in 1991 and that following the de-acquisition and gazetting of the release of the land Vide Exhibit D1, the Respondent approached the Elibujor Ogbe–Ogo Community with particulars of his title by purchase to three portion of the said land, out of which the land in dispute is one, and informed the Community that he has been in possession. The Community then under the headship of late Hon. Justice Uche Omo, a retired Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria, looked into the Respondent’s claim and upon being convinced and satisfied that he was in possession and had a good case requested him to pay the sum of N400,000.00 to regularize his title to the lands including the land in dispute, a sum which the Respondent paid and a Deed of Transfer dated 31/7/2008 was executed by the Diokpa, Head and Other Principal members of the Community with the Respondent, though regrettably his lordship Uche Omo, JSC Rtd had been deceased at the time of execution of Exhibit D2 but succeeded by a new Diokpa who executed the said Deed of Conveyance. The DW1 and DW2 as Elders and then Chairman and Secretary to the Elibujor Ogbe-Ogo Community signed the said Deed of Transfer vide Exhibit D2.

​Now, where if I may ask, were the Appellants when the Diokpa, Head of their Elibujor Ogbe-Ogo Community, and no less a person than a Retired Justice of The Supreme Court of Nigeria, intervened in this matter and his successor executed on behalf of the Elibujor Ogbe–Ogo Community along with other Principal Members the Deed of Conveyance in Exhibit D2 in favor of the Respondent in respect of and over all the three plots of land, including the land in dispute? Perhaps, they were sleeping or indeed lying in wait to enable their Elibujor Ogbe–Ogo Community collect the Respondent’s hard earned sum of N400,000.00 in 2008 before waking up and/or surfacing to lay claim to part of the land, the land in dispute, already conveyed to the Respondent by those with the capacity to so convey under their Native Law and Custom, the Diokpa as Head and Principal Members of their Elibujor Ogbe-Ogo Community. I believe that the Court below, without expressly saying so, saw through the Appellants’ scheme to deny the Respondent the land validly conveyed to him by the Elibujor Ogbe-Ogo Community whilst the said Community retained his hard earned money to its benefit, including if I can, or may hazard a guess here, the Appellants as Members of the said Elibujor Ogbe-Ogo Community. Again, this is sad!

Now, by the Deed of Conveyance vide Exhibit D2 executed by the Diokpa, who succeeded the Hon. Justice Uche Omo then late, and Principal members of the Elibujor Ogbe-Ogo Community the indisputed original owners of the land in dispute as well as the very truthful and undiscredited evidence of DW1 and DW2, who are Elders, Chairman and Secretary of the Appellants’ own family Land Allocation Committee to the effect that as at 2005, the land in dispute was still under the acquisition of the Delta State Government and was only de–acquired and released to the Elibujor Ogbe-Ogo Community in 2008 vide Exhibit D1, dated 15/11/2007, I cannot but agree with the findings by the Court below, and hereby affirm same as true and correct, that the land in dispute being part of the larger parcel of land of Elibujor Ogbe–Ogo Community was de-acquired and returned to the said Community vide Exhibit D1 dated 15/11/2007 and was duly and validly conveyed to the Respondent by the Diokpa and Principal Members of the Elibujor Ogbe-Ogoor Community vide Exhibit D2 as required by the Native Law and Custom of Asaba and thereby conferring title to the land in dispute on the Respondent. See Ayanwale V. Odusami (2012) 204 LRCN 198 @ pp. 211-212; Idundun V. Okumagba (1976) 9 -10 SC 224; Obuobipi V. Obuoforibo (2010) All FWLR (Pt. 546) 543 @ p. 560.

There was also unchallenged evidence, even conceded by the Appellants, that the Respondent was and still in possession of the land in dispute since 2003, which he claimed was by virtue of Exhibits D16, D17 and D18 whilst the land in dispute being part of the larger land of the Elibujor Ogbe–Ogo Community, the original owners of the land, was under acquisition of the Delta State Government. There was also evidence which was believed by the Court below, and quite rightly too, that the Elibujor Ogbe-Ogo Community, to which the Appellants belong and who they claim allotted the land in dispute to them vide Exhibits C1 and C2, in fact and indeed conveyed the title to the land in dispute vide Exhibit D2 to the Respondent after it was de-acquired and released to the Elibujor Ogbe-Ogo Community vide Exhibit D6 dated 15/11/2007.

The Court below having found as fact, and quite rightly too in my view, that by virtue of Exhibits D6 and D1, the land in dispute as part of the larger land originally belonging to the Elibujor Ogbe-Ogo Community was acquired in 1991 and was de-acquired and released by the Delta State Government only in 2007 to the Elibujor Ogbe–Ogo Community, the said Elibujor Ogbe-Ogo Community had no interest in the land in dispute as at 2005 that it could validly allot and/or transfer to the Appellants vide Exhibits C1 and C2 whilst the land in dispute was still under the acquisition of the Delta State Government. This is so because, and as correctly reasoned by the Court below, as at 2005 when the Appellants alleged that their Elibujor Ogbe-Ogo Community allotted the land in dispute to them vide Exhibits C1 and C2, the land in dispute was still under the acquisition of the Government of Delta State and was therefore, not available to be allotted by the Elibujor Ogbe-Ogo Community to the Appellants or any other persons since the law is ‘nemo dat quod non habet.’ The logic here is simple enough: One cannot give out what he does not have! In Yusuf V. Oyetunde & Ors (1998) 12 NWLR (Pt. 579) 483 @ p. 493, the Supreme Court had emphatically pronounced inter alia thus:
“Once there is a compulsory acquisition of land, the title of the former land owner becomes extinguished by the reason of the acquisition and when the acquired land or part of it is returned, a new root of title by grant will be created.”
My lords, I believe the Appellants do not have the law on their side in the circumstances of this appeal on the pleadings and evidence, both oral and documentary as led by the parties. Thus, on the face of Exhibits D1, D2 and D6, coupled with the unchallenged evidence of DW1 and DW2, and the unchallenged evidence of several acts of ownership and possession of the land in dispute by the Respondent without any hindrance from any of the Appellants, the Court below was perfectly right when it found that the Elibujor Ogbe-Ogo Community cannot whilst Exhibit D6 remained valid and lasted and before Exhibit D1 was issued validly convey, allot and/or confer on the Appellants any valid title to the land in dispute as any such exercise is one wanting in validity and thus null and void. Thus, Exhibits C1 and C2 are only but exercise in futility amounting to a nullity and of no legal effect whatsoever. See Mr. Frank Anyi & Ors V. Chief Henry Ayaode Akande (2017) LPELR -41973(CA) per Georgewill JCA. See also Okelola V. Adeleke (2004) 13 NWLR (Pt. 890) 307 @ pp. 323 324; Apatira & Ors V. Lagos Island Local Government & Ors (2006) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1007) 46 @ p. 69.

Yes, I can see in the recitals in Exhibit D2 that the land in dispute forms part of the larger parcel of land which was originally acquired by the Delta State Government in 1991 but was later released to the family by the Delta State Government in 2005. I have also considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the Appellants that since the recital had stated that the land was released in 2005, it buttresses the case of the Appellants that they acquired the said land in 2005 from the Elibujor Ogbe–Ogo Community after it was de-acquired by the Delta State Government in 2005 and that the fact that it took another three years for the Delta State Government to gazette the de-acquisition vide Exhibit D1 did not change the fact that the de- acquisition took place in 2005 since in law, equity regards as done that which ought to be done and calling in aid of these submissions the decided authorities of Walsh V. Lonsdale (1882) 21 Ch.D 9; Obaseki V. Ukhuegbe (2010) LPELR-5084(CA); Ohiaeri V. Yusuf And 3 Ors (2009) 2 NMLR 313.
It is true that equity, which evolved in the Courts of Chancery to mitigate the rigors and often times harshness and rigidity of the common law, regards as done that which ought to be done but the considerations guiding the applicability of this finer principle of the law of equity are well settled. However, I hold the view that this principle of equity does not avail the Appellants and does include circumstances such as in the instant appeal where in 1991 the Government of Delta State which had by Exhibit D6 acquired lands belonging to the Elibujor Ogbe-Ogo Community, including the land in dispute did so in writing and duly gazetted same, would when it comes to the time for its de-acquisition and release to its original land owners, the Elibujor Ogbe-Ogo Community, then resort to doing so orally without any letter to document to that effect. In law such de-acquisition and release of previously acquired land must be in writing and duly gazetted to be effective. It cannot be done orally since the acquisition itself was in the first place done in writing. It is thus the law that to divest the acquired authority of the right in the acquired property it would require a formal act or deed of release or gazette as in Exhibit D1. See Adeniyi V. Oroja (2006) All FWLR (Pt. 324) 1839 @ p. 1864.

Now, the acquisition of the communal land of the Elubujor Ogbe-Ogo Land in 1991 was done vide Exhibit D6. It was not and could not have been done orally being an act affecting interest in land. It follows therefore, that the de-acquisition of the said land, acquired formally and in writing, can only be done and made possible in writing. It cannot be de-acquired orally. I have looked calmly to see any document or letter evidencing, as required by law, the de-acquisition and release of the land in dispute in 2005 save Exhibit D1 issued on 15/11/2007 and none I can find or see! It follows therefore, that by virtue of Exhibit D1 coupled with the unchallenged evidence of DW1 and DW2 on the concerted efforts made by and on behalf of the Elibjuir Ogbe-Ogo Community between 2003 and 2007 for the release of the acquired land to the said Community, the effective date of the release of the land was 15/11/2007 vide Exhibit D1 when it was gazetted to the whole world and I so affirm this finding of fact by the Court below. Thus, until the release was formalised, published and gazetted by the Delta State Government and the reversionary interest in the land reverted to the Elijubor Ogbe-Ogo Community in 2007, the Elijubor Ogbe-Ogo Community had no power or authority or vested interest in the land in dispute to allote it to any person, including the Appellants.

It follows therefore, that as at 2005 in the absence of any letter or document of release of the land in dispute by the Delta State Government to the Elijubor Ogbe-Ogo Community, notwithstanding the recitals in Exhibit D2, the said Elibujor Ogbe–Ogo Community had nothing to give or allot to the Appellants since in law, a Deed of Releases and or Gazeette as in Exhibit D1 is a sine quo non for a previously acquired land to be vested again in the original owners from whom it was acquired and to whom it was relased by the Government. Thus, it is clear to me and I hereby so hold that the finer principles of the equitable maxim of ‘equity looks as done that which ought to be done’ does not apply in the circumstances of this appeal in the absence of any letter or document issued as at 2005 evidencing the release of the land in dispute to the Elijubor Ogbe-Ogo Community pending when it was gazetted as in Exhibit D1.

My lords, I now come to the claim of the Appellants to title to the land in dispute. The claim to title to the land in dispute by the Appellants was founded squarely on Exhibits C1 and C2, which in turn were predicated on the alleged allotment to them of the land in dispute by the Elibujor Ogbe-Ogo Community Land Committee headed by CW1 and made in 2005 vide Exhibits C1 and C2, which documents regrettably were not signed by the Diokpa as Head and Principal Members of Elibujor Ogbe-Ogo Community in comparism to Exhibit D2 signed by the Diokpa as Head and Principal Members of Elibujor Ogbe-Ogo Community and was also issued when the land in dispute was clearly and indisputably still under the acquisition of the Delta State Government in the absence of any instrument of release of the said land to the Elibujor Ogbe-Ogo Community as required by law. The Appellants having relied on Exhibits C1 and C2 as their only root of title to the land in dispute, I find as fact that the Appellants failed woefully to prove any title to the land in dispute as was also impeccably and unimpeachably found by the Court below. As at 2005, the Elibujor Ogbe-Ogo Community had no valid proprietary interest in the land in dispute to allot to the Appellants or to any other person as the land in dispute was then still under the acquisition of the Delta State Government vide Exhibit D6. This Court therefore, has no business disturbing these correct findings and conclusions of the Court below. I rather affirm them as correct! See Ogunleye V. Safejo (2010) All FWLR (Pt. 523) 1889 @ p. 1916; Adeniyi V. Oroja (2006) All FWLR (Pt. 324) 1839 @ p. 1864; Yusuf V. Oyetunde & Ors (1998) 12 NWLR (Pt. 579) 483 @ p. 493; Macfoy V. UAC Ltd; Egbunike & Anor V. ACB Ltd (1995) 2 SCNJ 58.

I have also looked at the issue of whether or not Plot 149 was allocated to the Appellants by the Elibujor Ogbe-Ogo Community in place of the land in dispute and I am of the considered opinion, and as was unassailably submitted by learned counsel for the Respondent, that such an issue was of no moment and is neither here nor there as it was never in issue before the Court below and not being part of the cause of action of any of the parties. It is not the duty of the Court, whether trial or appellate, to concern itself with extraneous issues or matters having no bearing to the facts in issue or not being facts relevant to the facts in issue. I therefore, do not see any legal or justifiable basis to invoke the provisions of Section 149 (d) of the Evidence Act, 2011 in this appeal as regards whether or not the Respondent produced any document showing the allotment by the Elibujor Ogbe- Ogo Community of Plot 149 to the Appellants in place of the land in dispute, which is Plot 128.

​Now, it has been vehemently contended by the learned counsel for the Appellants that the Respondent is setting up a new or different case in this appeal from the case he pleaded and presented before the Court below. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the Respondent in this appeal and I find that the Respondent did not set up any new or different case in this appeal as different from the case put forward in both his pleadings and evidence before the Court below as was vehemently but erroneously contended in this appeal by the learned counsel for the Appellant. Interestingly, to underscore the premium placed by the Respondent on the conveyance of the land in dispute to him by the Diokpa and other Principal Members of the Elibujor Ogbe-Ogo Community, the Deed of Conveyance evidencing that transaction was even put in evidence as Exhibit D2, long before his earlier transactions with the allotee from the Delta State Government was put much later in evidence as Exhibits D16, 17 and D18.

The Respondent did not in any way contend in this appeal that the finding by the Court below to the effect that Exhibit D18 was invalid, was wrong and/or erroneous. There was in the circumstances, therefore, no need for a Cross-Appeal by the Respondent who had accepted the finding by the Court below that Exhibit D18 was invalid and had in this appeal only supported the finding by the Court below that Exhibit D2 validly conferred title to the land in dispute on the Respondent. That I should say is indeed the traditional role of a Respondent to support the judgment entered in his favor by the trial Court. There is therefore, nothing inconsistent or unwholesome in the attitude of the Respondent and/or his learned counsel in this appeal to warrant and justify, in the least, the invectives and vituperations poured on them in the Appellants’ Reply brief. It was baseless, uncalled for and totally unnecessary. Thus, all the decided authorities heavily relied upon by the learned counsel to the Appellants, namely: Olukoga & Ors V. Fatunde (1996) 7 NWLR (Pt. 62) 516; Godwin Obi (Okoronkwo) V. Chief Hyginus Ugbor (2018) LPELR-44420 (CA); AGI V. PDP &Ors. (2016) 12 SC (Pt. 1) 74 @ p. 78; Ajide V. Kelani (1985) LPELR-302 (SC); All Nigeria Peoples Party & Anor V. Peoples Democratic Party & Ors (2006) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1009) 467; Crown Floor Mills Ltd V. Olokun (2007) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1077) 254 @ p. 285; Ipinlaiye V. Olutokun (1996) 6 NWLR (Pt. 453) 148; Usman & Anor V. FRN (2018) LPELR-45629 (CA); Momodu V. Momoh (1991) 2 LRCN 437, do not avail the Appellants.

​Indeed, the Court below carried out its duty of evaluation very conscientiously and insightfully and did arrived at very sound and correct findings of facts on which it made its resultant ultimate decision finding in favor of the Respondent against the Appellants. I endorse all the findings of facts as apt and correct and cannot but allow them to stand. There is therefore, no legal basis on which the decision of the Court below can be upturned on the facts and evidence as in the Record of Appeal. In such circumstances, where the findings and the resultant decision thereon is correct, an appellate Court would not interfere with or disturb such correct findings or decisions. See Alhaji Ndayako & Ors. V. Alhaji Dantoro & Ors.(2004) 13 NWLR (Pt. 889) 187 @ p. 198, where Edozie, JSC., had pronounced with finality on this vexed issue, thus:
“An appellate Court is only concerned with whether the judgment appealed against is right or wrong not whether the reasons given are right or wrong. Where the judgment is right but the reasons given are wrong, the appellate Court does not interfere. It is only where the misdirection has caused the Court to come to a wrong conclusion that the appellate Court will interfere…”
See also Abaye V. Ofili (1986) 1 NWLR (Pt. 15) 134; Ukejianya V. Uchendu 18 WACA 46; Oni V. Johnson (2015) LPELR–24545 (CA); Balogun V. Agboola (1974) 1 All NLR (Pt. 2) 66.

In the light of all I have said and found as above, the sole issue for determination is hereby resolved against the Appellants in favor of the Respondent and I hold firmly that this appeal lacks merit and is thus liable to be dismissed in its entirety. Consequently, it is hereby so dismissed.

In the result, the judgment of the High Court of Delta State, Coram: C. O. Ogisi J., in Suit No. A/213/2012: Mr. Anthony Uso & Anor V. Leonard Azomani, delivered on 12/1/2017, wherein the claims of the Appellants as Claimants against the Respondent as Defendants were dismissed, whilst the counter-claim of the Respondent against the Appellants was granted is hereby affirmed.
There shall be no order as to cost

MOHAMMED AMBI-USI DANJUMA, J.C.A.: I have read in draft, the lead judgment by my learned brother, SIR BIOBELE ABRAHAM GEORGEWILL, JCA in this appeal and I concur that the affirmation of the decision dismissing the Appellants’ claims and the grant of the Respondent’s counter-claim is in order.

His lordship has dexterously and in detail re-evaluated the evidence led at the trial Court and rightly found as at the trial Court that the justice of the case had been met.

I agree and adopt the reasoning in arriving at the orders entered by His lordship.

ABIMBOLA OSARUGUE OBASEKI-ADEJUMO, J.C.A.: I have read the lead judgment of my learned brother, BIOBELE ABRAHAM GEORGEWILL, JCA before now, and I find that he has covered the field and dealt with the salient issues at stake. I therefore, agree with the reasoning and conclusion reached therein, except to emphasise that;

A party in a claim for declaration of title to land need only prove one of the ways/methods of proving title elucidated in the case of IDUNDUN v OKUMAGBA (SUPRA). See MATANMI & ORS v DADA & ANOR (2013) LPELR–19929 (SC); MADU v MADU (2008) LPELR–1806 (SC); FALEYE & ORS v DADA & ORS (2016) LPELR–40297 (SC).

The Respondent relied on Exhibit D2 (the Deed of Transfer between the Respondent and the Head and principal members of the Elubijor Ogbe–Ogo Community) and Exhibit D18 (the allotment paper from Delta State Government).

The Respondent has proved his title by Exhibit D2, the oral and documentary evidence of DW1 and DW2 which were not shaken under the fire of cross-examination showing the payment of N400,000.00 to the Elubijor Ogbe–Ogo Community to regularize his allotment from the Delta State Government after the de-acquisition of the Community land.

Therefore, the Appellants’ contention that Exhibit D18 does not prove good title, is absolutely unnecessary and unwarranted.

For this and the succinct reasoning in the lead judgment, I join in holding that the appeal lacks merit and is dismissed in its entirety.

​The judgment of the High Court of Delta State per C. O. Ogisi, J delivered on 12th January, 2017 is hereby affirmed. I abide by the consequential orders on cost.

Appearances:

E. C. Abednego, Esq., with him, H. C. Enyawuile, Esq. For Appellant(s)

C. M. Ashibuogwu, Esq., with him, L. N. Dike, Esq. and C. N. Olisah, Esq. For Respondent(s)