YAKUBU v. SHUAIBU
(2021)LCN/15899(CA)
In the Court of Appeal
(YOLA JUDICIAL DIVISION)
On Wednesday, June 30, 2021
CA/YL/97/2019
Before Our Lordships:
Chidi Nwaoma Uwa Justice of the Court of Appeal
Bitrus Gyarazama Sanga Justice of the Court of Appeal
Jamilu Yammama Tukur Justice of the Court of Appeal
Between
MATHIAS V. YAKUBU APPELANT(S)
And
MOHAMMED SHUAIBU RESPONDENT(S)
RATIO:
IN A CLAIM FOR DECLARATION OF TITLE OVER LAND THE PLAINTIFF MUST SATISFY THE COURT ON THE STRENGTH OF HIS CASE
The law is well settled that in order for a Court to grant a party’s relief for declaration of title over land, such a party must properly establish and prove his entitlement to the declaration by cogent evidence.
The Supreme Court in the case of ONOVO & ORS v. MBA & ORS (2014) LPELR-23035(SC), (P. 27, paras. A-E) per OGUNBIYI, J.S.C. reiterated the foregoing thus:
“The law is also settled that, in a claim for declaration of title to land, the onus lies on the plaintiffs/appellants to establish their claim on the strength of their own case and not rely on the weakness of the defendants/respondents. Therefore, the plaintiffs must satisfy the Court that based on their pleadings and evidence, they are entitled to the declaration sought. See Odunukwe v. Ofomata (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1225) 404 at 445. Also, the case of Ekanem v. Akpan (1991) 8 NWLR (Pt. 211) 616 at 631 where it was held by this Court that: “In an action for declaration of title to land it is trite law that the plaintiff must prove title or at least prove to have been in exclusive possession as approved in the case of Ekpo v. Ita II NLR 68 and held further in the case of Idundun v. Okumagba (1976) NMLR 200. Further, he must on the strength of his case and not on the weakness of the defence.”
See: Section 137(1) of the Evidence Act; KOPEK CONSTRUCTION LTD. V. EKISOLA (2010) LPELR-1703(SC); OLATOMIDE & ANOR v. IKUMUYILO & ORS (2019) LPELR-48374(CA); and OLATUNJI & ORS v. AYENI (2019) LPELR-48495(CA). JAMILU YAMMAMA TUKUR, J.C.A.
THE PROCESS FOR TENDERING AND ADMISSION OF DOCUMENTS
There are also no documentary evidence that will help the case of the Respondent, because the records do not show how or when documents were tendered and admitted as evidence. The process for tendering and admission of documents may not be as formal as in high Courts, but there ought to have been a record of the presentation of the documents before the trial Area Court. The lower Court having not found such record was wrong to have upheld the reliance on the documents as justification for declaration of title in favour of the Respondent, as an appellate Court is bound by the contents of the record of appeal. JAMILU YAMMAMA TUKUR, J.C.A.
THE INTERFERNCE OF THE FINDINGS OF THE COURT
There are indeed circumstances as rightly argued by Appellant’s counsel where an appellate Court may interfere with the findings of a lower Court and this appeal represents such an example, as the decision of the Court was not based on cogent evidence before it. See: NZEKWE v. ANAEKWENEGBU (2019) LPELR-49002(SC) (Pp. 22-23, Paras. B-D) Per OKORO, J.S.C; and UBN PLC. V. NWANAJUO (2012) LPELR-7914(CA). JAMILU YAMMAMA TUKUR, J.C.A.
A VISIT TO LOCUS IN QUO DOES NOT AUTOMATICALLY SETTLE ISSUES AS TO OWNERSHIP OF TITLE
The issue of locus in quo is not particularly helpful to the Respondent’s case as a visit to locus in quo does not automatically settle issues as to ownership of title especially where the identity of the land in dispute is not a fact in issue but has to do with whether the party lawfully bought the land.
See: ABDULLAHI & ORS v. ADETUTU (2019) LPELR-47384(SC) Per AUGIE, J.S.C. (Pp. 33-34, Paras. A-E),; and ADAMU v. IGWESI (2014) LPELR-24000 (CA); and EGBUCHE v. EGBUCHE (2013) LPELR-22512(CA). JAMILU YAMMAMA TUKUR, J.C.A.
JAMILU YAMMAMA TUKUR, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): This is an appeal against the judgment of the High Court of Taraba State, sitting in its appellate jurisdiction in APPEAL NO: TRSJ/32A/13 delivered on 5th July, 2018 by Honourable Justice J.F. Agya (presiding), wherein, the Court gave judgment in favour of the Respondent.
The material facts of the appeal before the lower Court which culminated to the one before this Court is that the Appellant acting on the belief that the Appellant rather than the Respondent was entitled to declaration of title to the land in dispute, contrary to the decision of the Grade 1 Area Court Kunini Lau Local Government Area of Taraba State, in Suit No. CV/13/2012, instituted an appeal before the lower Court, seeking the reversal of the decision of the Grade 1 Area Court on the following grounds:
1. The trial Judge erred in law when he declared title to the disputed land in favour of the Plaintiff.
PARTICULARS OF ERROR
There is no legally admissible evidence on record to support the declaration in favour of the Plaintiff.
2. The decision of the trial Area Court is perverse.
3. The decision is against the weight of evidence.
Following the above, both parties presented their briefs of argument and in a judgment delivered on the 5th day of July, 2018, the lower Court held that the decision of the Area Court was sound and dismissed the appeal.
Dissatisfied with the decision, the Appellant appealed via a Notice of Appeal dated 21st January, 2019, and filed on 22nd January, 2019 with 5 grounds of appeal.
The Appellant’s Brief of Argument is dated 25th September, 2020, filed on 28th September, 2020 and deemed properly filed on 8th October, 2020.
Appellant’s counsel distilled three issues for determination to wit:
1. Whether the Taraba State High Court was not in error when it held that Exhibit A1 and A2 were legal evidence and lawfully admitted and the findings of the trial Area Court on the basis of the said Exhibits were not perverse. (Ground 3)
2. Whether having regard to the grounds of appeal, issues submitted for determination and written addresses filled by the parties, the Taraba State High Court was right to have held that the appellant did not complain that the judgment of the trial Area Court was wrong and that there was no good reason to interfere with the finding of the trial Court. (Grounds 1 & 2)
3. Whether having regard to the evidence before the trial Area Court, the Taraba State High Court was not in error when it affirmed the judgment of the trial Area Court which declared title to the Respondent. (Grounds 4 and 5)
The Respondent did not file Brief of Argument.
A calm consideration of the facts and circumstances of this appeal, coupled with the issues formulated by the Appellant herein, reveals that the sole issue that calls for determination is:
Whether or not the lower Court was right to affirm the decision of the trial Area Court declaring title of the land in dispute to the Respondent.
Learned counsel for the Appellant argued that the lower Court erred in law and reached a perverse decision when it affirmed the decision of the trial Area Court, as the documents which allegedly formed the basis of the trial Area Court’s decision that is exhibits “A1” and “A2”, were never tendered nor admitted as evidence at the trial Area Court. Counsel pointed out that from the records of appeal, there is nowhere in the proceedings of the trial Area Court where the said exhibits were either tendered or admitted and as such, the exhibits cannot be properly relied on as justification for the trial Area Court’s decision, contrary to the lower Court’s finding.
He relied on: Osuji v. Ekeocha (2009) All FWLR (Pt. 490) Pg. 614 at 644 paras. E-G; Nobis-Elendu v. INEC & Ors (2015) LPELR-25127 (SC) Pg. 34 Paras. E-G; Ndukauba v. Kolomo & ANOR (2005) LPELR Pg. 17 paras. B-C; and Chukwu v. Omaku (2009) All FWLR (Pt. 490) Pg. 698 at 700-701 Ratio 2.
Learned counsel further argued that contrary to the position of the lower Court, the Appellant at the Court below challenged the decision of the trial Area Court which declared title to the Respondent, on the ground that same was erroneous in law and perverse, as the decision reached was not backed by any credible evidence because the oral testimony adduced by the Respondent’s witnesses to show how the Respondent obtained title to the land was contradictory and the documents relied upon by the trial Area Court were never tendered and admitted in the course of the proceedings before the trial Area Court.
Counsel submitted that the Respondent at the lower Court did not dispute Appellant’s contention on material contradictions in the Respondent’s evidence at trial, which amounts to admission in law and that the lower Court erroneously failed to decide the issue one way or another. Counsel further submitted that the lower Court was wrong to have refused to interfere with the lower Court’s finding of facts, as the circumstances of this appeal are such that warrants such interference because, the trial Court’s decision was perverse and the fact that proceedings at an Area Court ought not to be overly technical, does not permit the lower Court to ignore conflicting evidence.
He relied on: Arowolo & Anor v. Ogoga of Ikere Ekiti (2011) LPELR–3804 (CA); Okafor v. Abumofuani (2016) LPELR-40299 (SC) Pg. 14 pars. A-C per Sanusi J.S.C; Fatuga v. Aina (2008) All FWLR (Pt. 398) Pg. 394 at 395 R. 1; Adebayo v. Ighodalo (1996) 5 SCNJ. Pg 29 at 31 para. 25; ELF NIG. LTD V. SILLO & ANOR (1994) LPELR-1115 (SC) Pg. 22, Para D; Gbafe v. Gbafe & Ors (1996) LPELR-1316 (SC) Pg. 17 Paras. C-D; and Thompson & Anor v. Arowolo (2003) LPELR-3240 (SC) Pg. 21-22 paras C-H.
RESOLUTION OF THE ISSUE
The law is well settled that in order for a Court to grant a party’s relief for declaration of title over land, such a party must properly establish and prove his entitlement to the declaration by cogent evidence.
The Supreme Court in the case of ONOVO & ORS v. MBA & ORS (2014) LPELR-23035(SC), (P. 27, paras. A-E) per OGUNBIYI, J.S.C. reiterated the foregoing thus:
“The law is also settled that, in a claim for declaration of title to land, the onus lies on the plaintiffs/appellants to establish their claim on the strength of their own case and not rely on the weakness of the defendants/respondents. Therefore, the plaintiffs must satisfy the Court that based on their pleadings and evidence, they are entitled to the declaration sought. See Odunukwe v. Ofomata (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1225) 404 at 445. Also, the case of Ekanem v. Akpan (1991) 8 NWLR (Pt. 211) 616 at 631 where it was held by this Court that: “In an action for declaration of title to land it is trite law that the plaintiff must prove title or at least prove to have been in exclusive possession as approved in the case of Ekpo v. Ita II NLR 68 and held further in the case of Idundun v. Okumagba (1976) NMLR 200. Further, he must on the strength of his case and not on the weakness of the defence.”
See: Section 137(1) of the Evidence Act; KOPEK CONSTRUCTION LTD. V. EKISOLA (2010) LPELR-1703(SC); OLATOMIDE & ANOR v. IKUMUYILO & ORS (2019) LPELR-48374(CA); and OLATUNJI & ORS v. AYENI (2019) LPELR-48495(CA).
The methods by which a Plaintiff can prove his ownership of land has been repeatedly reiterated by the Courts to include: traditional history; documents of title or; various acts of ownership, numerous and positive and extending over a length of time as to warrant the inference of ownership or; acts of long enjoyment and possession of the land or; proof of possession of adjacent land in circumstances which renders it probable that the owner of such adjacent land would in addition be the owner of the land in dispute.
See: AJIBULU v. Ajayi (2013) LPELR-21860(SC)
A party is at liberty to choose any way they wish to prove their ownership of land, so long as they establish same on the balance of probability which is the standard of proof in civil cases, including cases of declaration of title to land.
The Respondent as Plaintiff before the trial Area Court sought to establish his title over the disputed land via documents of title/purchase from previous owners, but there is no evidence before this Court that he succeeded in doing so. The reason for the foregoing is that, there appears to be material contradictions on the oral testimonies of the Respondent’s witnesses before the Area Court, which the lower Court did not resolve. The implication of these material contradiction, makes it impossible to determine from whom the Respondent’s father bought the land from, because the testimonies of Pw1 to the effect that Gidado who sold to the Respondent’s father got the land in dispute from Appellant’s grandfather Jauro Zadick, was contradicted by PW2 who testified that Gidado got the land from Dakama, and yet contradicted by PW3 who testified that Respondent’s father bought the land directly from the Appellant’s grandfather; being contradictory in nature, must be disregarded.
See: OGUNDOYIN & ORS v. EWENLA (2017) LPELR-43218(CA); AJAYI & ORS v. AKAWA & ANOR (2018) LPELR-44933(CA); and ANAGBADO v. FARUK (2016) LPELR-41634(CA).
There are also no documentary evidence that will help the case of the Respondent, because the records do not show how or when documents were tendered and admitted as evidence. The process for tendering and admission of documents may not be as formal as in high Courts, but there ought to have been a record of the presentation of the documents before the trial Area Court. The lower Court having not found such record was wrong to have upheld the reliance on the documents as justification for declaration of title in favour of the Respondent, as an appellate Court is bound by the contents of the record of appeal.
There are indeed circumstances as rightly argued by Appellant’s counsel where an appellate Court may interfere with the findings of a lower Court and this appeal represents such an example, as the decision of the Court was not based on cogent evidence before it. See: NZEKWE v. ANAEKWENEGBU (2019) LPELR-49002(SC) (Pp. 22-23, Paras. B-D) Per OKORO, J.S.C; and UBN PLC. V. NWANAJUO (2012) LPELR-7914(CA).
The issue of locus in quo is not particularly helpful to the Respondent’s case as a visit to locus in quo does not automatically settle issues as to ownership of title especially where the identity of the land in dispute is not a fact in issue but has to do with whether the party lawfully bought the land.
See: ABDULLAHI & ORS v. ADETUTU (2019) LPELR-47384(SC) Per AUGIE, J.S.C. (Pp. 33-34, Paras. A-E),; and ADAMU v. IGWESI (2014) LPELR-24000 (CA); and EGBUCHE v. EGBUCHE (2013) LPELR-22512(CA).
In the light of the foregoing, I resolve the lone issue in favour of the Appellant.
The appeal is meritorious and same is hereby allowed. The judgment of the lower Court delivered on 5th July, 2018 in Appeal No. TRSJ/32A/13 is hereby set aside.
Parties to bear their respective costs.
CHIDI NWAOMA UWA, J.C.A.: I read in advance, a draft copy of the judgment delivered by my learned brother JAMILU YAMMAMA TUKUR, JCA, without reservations I agree with his reasoning and conclusion arrived at in allowing the appeal for being meritorious. I also allow the appeal and set aside the judgment of the lower Court delivered on the 5th July, 2018 in Appeal No. TRSJ/32A/13.
BITRUS GYARAZAMA SANGA, J.C.A.: I read the draft of the judgment just delivered by my learned brother J. Y. Tukur, JCA. I agree with and adopt as mine, the finding and conclusion in the judgment and join my brother in allowing this appeal for the reason given in the said lead judgment. The judgment by the lower Court delivered in its appellate jurisdiction on 5/7/2018 is set aside by me. I also abide by the order as to costs.
Appearances:
E. N. Chia For Appellant(s)
Respondent’s counsel absent and unrepresented. For Respondent(s)