YUSUF v. OGUNLANA
(2021)LCN/15915(CA)
In The Court Of Appeal
(IBADAN JUDICIAL DIVISION)
On Wednesday, June 02, 2021
CA/IB/423/2018
Before Our Lordships:
Jimi Olukayode Bada Justice of the Court of Appeal
Ugochukwu Anthony Ogakwu Justice of the Court of Appeal
Folasade Ayodeji OjoJustice of the Court of Appeal
Between
ALHAJA L.O. YUSUF APPELANT(S)
And
MR. OGUNLANA RESPONDENT(S)
RATIO:
AN ISSUE CANNOT BE RAISED OUTSIDE THE APPELLANT’S GROUND OF APPEAL
The law is settled that a party who has judgment in his favour and has not taken out a Respondent’s Notice is not entitled to raise any adverse issue arising from the judgment. In other words, he cannot raise any issue outside the Appellant’s ground of Appeal. Any issue raised by him must flow from the Grounds of Appeal filed by the Appellant. See EZEANAH VS. ATTA (2004) 7 NWLR (PT. 873) 468; POROYE VS. MAKARFI (2018) 1 NWLR (PT. 1599) 91; EKE VS. OGBONDA (2006) 18 NWLR (PT. 1012) 506 and NSIRIM VS. AMADI (2016) 5 NWLR (PT. 1504) 42. FOLASADE AYODEJI OJO, J.C.A.
IN AN ACTION FOR DECLRATION OF TITLE TO LAND THE CLAIMANT MUST SUCCEED ON THE STRENGTH OF HIS OWN CASE
The law is settled that in an action for declaration of title to land, a claimant would succeed on the strength of his own case and not rely on the weakness of the case of the opposing party to obtain judgment. A claimant may however rely on the evidence of the Defendant which supports his case. The burden is always on the claimant to prove his case on the preponderance of evidence or balance of probabilities. See YAKUBU VS. JAUROYEL (2014) 11 NWLR (PT.1318) 205; SHITTU VS. FASHAWE (2005) 14 NWLR (PT. 946) 671; ONISAODU VS. ELEWUJU (2006) 13 NWLR (PT. 998) 517 and ADEWUYI VS. ODUKWE (2005) 14 NWLR (PT. 945) 473. FOLASADE AYODEJI OJO, J.C.A.
THE SETTLED LAW ON THE METHODS THE OWNERSHIP OR TITLE TO LAND MAY BE PROVED
It has also been settled in a long line of Judicial authorities that ownership or title to land may be proved by any of the following methods:
a) By traditional evidence
b) By production of documents of title which are duly authenticated
c) By acts of selling, leasing, renting out all or part of the land or farming on it or on a portion of it
d) By acts of long possession and enjoyment of the land and
e) By proof of possession of connected or adjacent land in circumstance rendering it probable that the owner of such connected or adjacent land would, in addition be the owner of the land in dispute.
See YUSUF VS. ADEGOKE (2007) 11 NWLR (PT. 1045) 332; FALEYE VS. DADA (2016) 14 NWLR (PT. 1584) 80; AWODI VS. AJAGBE (2015) 3 NWLR (PT. 1447) 578 and ONOVO VS. MBA (2014) 14 NWLR (PT. 1427) 391.
Where however, as it is sometimes the case, the claimant pleads and/or relies on more than one method to prove his title, he does so ex abundant cautela because proof of any of the five methods enumerated above would suffice. See BALOGUN VS. AKANJI (1988) 1 NWLR (PT. 424) 252 and ONWUBUARIRI VS. IGBOASOIYI (2011) 3 NWLR (PT. 1234) 357. FOLASADE AYODEJI OJO, J.C.A.
THE MERE PRODUCTION OF A DOCUMENT OF TITLE DOES NOT AUTOMATICALLY ENTITLE A PARTY TO A CLAIM FOR DECLARATION OF TITLE
The law is trite that mere production of a document of title does not automatically entitle a party to a claim for declaration of title. Before the production of title document is admitted as sufficient proof of ownership a Court of law must satisfy itself that:
a) The document is genuine or valid.
b) It has been duly executed, stamped and registered.
c) The grantor has the authority and capacity to make the grant.
d) That the grantor has in fact what he proposes to grant.
e) That the grant has the effect claimed by the holder of the instrument.
See AGBOOLA VS. UNITED BANK FOR AFRICA PLC (2011) 11 NWLR (PT. 1258) 375; THOMPSON VS. AROWOLO (2003) 7 NWLR (PT. 818) 163 and OJIBAH VS. OJIBAH (1991) 5 NWLR (PT. 191) 276. FOLASADE AYODEJI OJO, J.C.A.
FOLASADE AYODEJI OJO, J.C.A. (Delivering The Leading Judgment): The instant appeal is against the judgment of the Ogun State High Court of Justice, Ijebu-Ode Judicial Division in SUIT NO. HCJ/90/2016 BETWEEN ALHAJA L.O. YUSUF … CLAIMANT AND MR. OGUNLANA … DEFENDANT delivered on 13th of June, 2018.
The Appellant as claimant at the lower Court commenced the action vide a writ of summons on the 19th of July, 2016. By an amended statement of claim filed on the 30th of May 2017, he sought the following reliefs:
1) A declaration that the land lying, being, situate and known as Block E, Plot 10 on Odubona Family layout, Igbeba, Ijebu-Ode Ogun State belongs to the claimant by virtue of inheritance, from her late father, Alhaji Yisa Adenuga Ajede.
2) A Declaration that the Acts of the Defendants by raising the fence and constructing 2 uncompleted shops on the claimant’s land, block E Plot 10, Odubona Family layout Igbeba, Ije-Ode constitute trespass on the claimant’s land.
3) An Order of injunction restraining the Defendant either by himself or through his privy, agents or anyone howsoever described from further acts of trespass on claimant’s land situate at Block E Plot 10 on Odubona family layout Igbeba, Ijebu-Ode, Ogun State.
4) An Order directing the Defendants to pay to the claimant the sum of N2 million as general damages for trespass.
5) Cost of Action.
Briefly, the case of the Appellant at the lower Court is that the land in dispute belonged to her father having purchased same from the Odubona family. She claimed her father constructed a fence around the land during his life time and that she inherited it under the Yoruba Native law and custom upon the demise of her father on 13th of April, 2004. She took possession of the land and exercised ownership rights on it without any hindrance from any quarters whatsoever until sometimes in January, 2016 when she discovered someone had trespassed. The trespasser raised a fence on the land and constructed two uncompleted shops on it. Upon enquiry she discovered it was the Respondent that committed the trespass. She caused her lawyer to write to him to stop further acts of trespass but he refused and which refusal caused her to institute the action at the lower Court.
The case of the Respondent is that he purchased the land from Mr. Jimoh Odubona and family and he has since been in possession. He gave evidence of acts of possession exercised by him and also claimed ownership of connected and adjacent land to the disputed land.
At the close of evidence on both sides, learned counsel filed their respective written addresses which they adopted before the lower Court.
In a considered judgment delivered on the 13th of June, 2018, the learned trial Judge dismissed the case of the Appellant who was the claimant.
The judgment is at pages 134 – 150 of the record.
Dissatisfied with the judgment, the Appellant filed a notice of Appeal on the 31st of July, 2018. See pages 151 to 153 of the record. The grounds of appeal without their particulars are as follows:
“A. The trial Court misdirected itself in law when it held that CW2 did not mention the name of the head of Odubona family that sold the land in dispute to their father nor any of the principal member present at the sale and thereby came to a wrong conclusion when it held that “I am of the view that the claimant’s evidence did not go to show the details of how the land came into the ownership or possession of her predecessor in title.”
B. The trial Court erred in law when it held that the claimant has failed to show how the land came into ownership or possession of her predecessors.
C. The trial Court erred in law in not considering the effect of the evidence of CW4 Otunba Olusegun Olayemi on Exhibit H tendered by the Defendant.
D. The judgment is against the weight of evidence adduced at the trial.”
In line with the rules and practice of this Court, parties filed and exchanged their briefs of Argument. The Appellant’s brief of Argument was filed on 30th of October, 2018. The Respondent for his part filed a Respondent brief of Argument on 24th of May, 2019 to which the Appellant filed a reply brief on 3rd of June, 2019.
Learned counsel to the Appellant nominated two issues for the determination of this appeal to wit:
1. Whether a claimant who relies on a purchase receipt as root of title of a land in dispute is under a duty to give evidence of how his/her predecessor in title came into ownership and possession of the land, especially when both parties traced their root of title to the same source i.e. Badaru Odubona family. The issue relates to grounds A and B of the Grounds of Appeal.
2. Whether the judgment is not against the weight of evidence adduced at the trial. This issue relates to grounds C and D of the Grounds of Appeal.
Learned counsel to the Respondent adopted the two issues formulated on behalf of the Appellant as his and argued them in the Respondent’s brief of Argument.
At the hearing of this appeal, learned counsel on both sides adopted their respective briefs of argument as their oral arguments in support of the case of parties.
The two issues formulated by the Appellant’s counsel are apt for the determination of this appeal. Issue No. 1 dovetails into issue No. 2. I shall therefore take the two issues together.
On issue No. 1, learned counsel to the Appellant reiterated the well settled position of the law that there are five ways to prove title to land and that proof by any of the five ways would suffice. He called in aid of his argument the case of ALHAJI GONI KYARI VS. ALHAJI CIROMA ALKALI & 2 ORS (2001) 6 NSCQR 819.
He submitted that the purchase receipt (Exhibit B) relied upon by the Appellant in proof of his title was tendered and admitted in evidence without any objection from the Respondent and that its authenticity was not in issue at the trial. He submitted further that it is only when a party relies on traditional history to establish his title to land that he has a burden of leading evidence on who founded the land, and how it was founded. He submitted that such party would also be required to give particulars of intervening acts to contend that the Appellant who relied on the purchase receipt was not required to prove who founded the land and how it was founded. He argued further that the learned trial Judge raised the issue of the need for the Appellant to lead evidence on how his predecessor in title derived ownership suo motu and did not afford the parties opportunity to be heard on the issue contrary to the position of the law. He then urged us to resolve this issue in favour of the Appellant.
Arguing issue No. 2, Appellant’s counsel referred us to the evidence adduced on behalf of the Appellant on record to submit the Appellant established sale under customary law. He relied on the cases of ADEDEJI VS. OLOSO (2007) 29 NSCQR 888 and COLE VS. FOLAMI (1956) IFSC 66.
He went on to point out the defects in the evidence adduced on behalf of the Respondent and submitted that the Respondent failed to prove sale under customary law. He further submitted that the learned trial Judge failed to do a proper evaluation of evidence adduced by parties before him and cited the cases of MOGAJI & ORS VS. ODOFIN (1978) 4 SC 53; ABISI & ORS VS. EKWEALOR & ANOR. (1993) LPELR-44 SC; and CHIEF IGUNBOR IGBODIM & 2 ORS VS. CHIEF UGBEDE OBIANKE & ORS (1979) 9/10 SC 179 on what is expected of a trial Judge when evaluating the evidence before him. He urged us to do a proper evaluation of the evidence presented by the parties at the trial. He craved in aid of his submission the case of COL. NICHOLAS AYANRU RTD VS. MANDILAS LTD. (2007) 30 NSCQR 85. He finally urged us to allow the appeal.
For his part, learned counsel to the Respondent on issue Nos. 1 argued that contrary to submissions made for the Appellant, parties did not trace their root of title to the same source. He submitted that while the Appellant traced her title to the Odubona family, the Respondent traced his root of title to Jimoh Badaru Odubona family. Learned counsel further relied on the cases of ADESANYA VS. ADEROUNMU (2000) 6 SC (PT. 2) 18; ELEMA VS. AKENZUA (2000) 6 SC (PT. 3) 26; AGBOOLA VS. UBA PLC & ORS (2011) LPELR – 9353 (SC); ODUSOGA & ANOR VS. RICKETTS (1997) LPELR – 2256 (SC) and BASSIL & ANR. v. FAJEBE & ANOR. (2001) 6 NSCQR 269 on the requirements of valid sale of land under customary law and went on to list same.
On the purchase receipt relied on by the Appellant to prove her title, learned counsel submitted that mere production of document of title does not entitle a party to a claim for declaration of title and that the claimant must prove the document is genuine.
He craved in aid of his submission the case of AYORINDE VS. KUFORIJI (2007) 4 NWLR (PT. 1024) 341; DOSUNMU VS. DADA (2002) 13 NWLR (PT. 783) 1; ROMAINE VS. ROMAINE (1992) 4 NWLR (PT. 238) 650; KYARI VS. ALKALI (2001) FWLR (PT. 60) 1481 and DABO VS. ABDULLAHI (2005) 7 NWLR (923) 181.
It is further the argument of Respondent’s counsel that the Appellant failed to prove his claim for declaration of title to the disputed land.
On the second issue learned counsel to the Respondent submitted that, in a claim for declaration of title to land the burden is on the plaintiff to prove his title to a defined area. He cited the cases of OLUJEBU OF IJEBU VS. OSO, THE ELEDA OF EDA (1972) LPELR – 2621 (SC); OSAWARU VS. EZEIRUKA (1978) LPELR (SC) and OKOYE & ORS. VS. NWANKWO (2014) LPELR – 2372 (SC) in support of his argument. He further submitted that the Appellant who did not prove her case cannot rely on the weakness of the defence as the law is that a Plaintiff must succeed on the strength of his own case and not on the weakness of the defence. He placed reliance on the cases of KODILINYE VS. ODU (1935) 2 WACA 336; AKINOLA VS. OLUWO (1962) 1 SCNLR 352 and FASIKUN II VS. OLURONKE II (1999) 2 NWLR (PT. 589) 1 to support his submissions.
He submitted and urged us to hold that the lower Court was right when it relied on the credible evidence adduced for the Respondent. He relied on the case of EMEKA VS. CHUBA IKPEAZU & ORS (2017) LPELR – 41920 (SC) on what amounts to credible evidence. He finally urged us to discountenance all arguments contained in the Appellant’s brief of Argument and dismiss the appeal.
Learned counsel to the Appellant, in the Appellant’s Reply brief of Argument urged us to discountenance the arguments in paragraphs 2.03 to 2.19 of the Respondent’s brief as they do not relate to any ground of appeal or issues formulated thereon. He relied on the cases of ATTORNEY GENERAL OF LAGOS STATE VS. EKO HOTELS LTD & ANOR. (2006) 27 NSCQR 623 and GOVERNOR OF KOGI STATE & ORS. VS. COL. HASSAN YAKUBU & ANOR. (2001) 5 NSCQR 598 to support his argument.
I shall commence the resolution of this appeal by a consideration of the objection raised by the Appellant in her Reply brief on the competence of the Arguments in the Respondent’s brief of Argument.
I have carefully gone through paragraphs 2.03 to 2.19 of the Respondent’s brief of Argument. They contain arguments on issue one formulated by the Appellant which was adopted by the Respondent. The issue was distilled from Grounds A and B of the Notice of Appeal.
Order 19 Rule 4 (2) of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2016, provides that a Respondent’s Brief shall:
i. Answer all the material points of substance contained in the Appellant’s brief.
ii. Contain all points raised in the Appellant’s brief and which the Respondent wishes to concede and
iii. Contain reasons why the appeal ought to be dismissed.
The question now is, whether the instant Respondent’s brief of Argument complies with the provisions of the Rules of this Court.
The arguments contained in paragraphs 2.03 to 2.14 of the Respondent’s brief of Argument is on the need for a Plaintiff to rely on the strength of his own case to prove his entitlement to a disputed land. It also contains argument on the point that, reliance on the purchase receipt by the Appellant does not meet the requirement of the law.
Paragraphs 2.16 to 2.19 of the Respondent’s brief contain arguments rooted in the defence of laches, standing by and doctrine of priorities.
The law is settled that a party who has judgment in his favour and has not taken out a Respondent’s Notice is not entitled to raise any adverse issue arising from the judgment. In other words, he cannot raise any issue outside the Appellant’s ground of Appeal. Any issue raised by him must flow from the Grounds of Appeal filed by the Appellant. See EZEANAH VS. ATTA (2004) 7 NWLR (PT. 873) 468; POROYE VS. MAKARFI (2018) 1 NWLR (PT. 1599) 91; EKE VS. OGBONDA (2006) 18 NWLR (PT. 1012) 506 and NSIRIM VS. AMADI (2016) 5 NWLR (PT. 1504) 42.
To my mind, the submissions of counsel contained in paragraphs 2.03 to 2.15 of the Respondent’s brief of Argument flow from Grounds A and B of the Notice of Appeal and issue No. 1 formulated thereon. The same cannot however be said of paragraphs 2.16 to 2.19. the arguments in the paragraphs which border on the defence of laches and acquiescence are in excess of Grounds A and B of the Notice of Appeal. They are incompetent and hereby discountenanced by me.
The law is settled that in an action for declaration of title to land, a claimant would succeed on the strength of his own case and not rely on the weakness of the case of the opposing party to obtain judgment. A claimant may however rely on the evidence of the Defendant which supports his case. The burden is always on the claimant to prove his case on the preponderance of evidence or balance of probabilities. See YAKUBU VS. JAUROYEL (2014) 11 NWLR (PT.1318) 205; SHITTU VS. FASHAWE (2005) 14 NWLR (PT. 946) 671; ONISAODU VS. ELEWUJU (2006) 13 NWLR (PT. 998) 517 and ADEWUYI VS. ODUKWE (2005) 14 NWLR (PT. 945) 473.
It has also been settled in a long line of Judicial authorities that ownership or title to land may be proved by any of the following methods:
a) By traditional evidence
b) By production of documents of title which are duly authenticated
c) By acts of selling, leasing, renting out all or part of the land or farming on it or on a portion of it
d) By acts of long possession and enjoyment of the land and
e) By proof of possession of connected or adjacent land in circumstance rendering it probable that the owner of such connected or adjacent land would, in addition be the owner of the land in dispute.
See YUSUF VS. ADEGOKE (2007) 11 NWLR (PT. 1045) 332; FALEYE VS. DADA (2016) 14 NWLR (PT. 1584) 80; AWODI VS. AJAGBE (2015) 3 NWLR (PT. 1447) 578 and ONOVO VS. MBA (2014) 14 NWLR (PT. 1427) 391.
Where however, as it is sometimes the case, the claimant pleads and/or relies on more than one method to prove his title, he does so ex abundant cautela because proof of any of the five methods enumerated above would suffice. See BALOGUN VS. AKANJI (1988) 1 NWLR (PT. 424) 252 and ONWUBUARIRI VS. IGBOASOIYI (2011) 3 NWLR (PT. 1234) 357.
Learned counsel to the Appellant argued that the Appellant relied on the purchase receipt (Exhibit B) to prove her title to the disputed land. He further argued that the authenticity of Exhibit B was not in issue at the trial. He submitted the document was duly executed and stamped.
The law is trite that mere production of a document of title does not automatically entitle a party to a claim for declaration of title. Before the production of title document is admitted as sufficient proof of ownership a Court of law must satisfy itself that:
a) The document is genuine or valid.
b) It has been duly executed, stamped and registered.
c) The grantor has the authority and capacity to make the grant.
d) That the grantor has in fact what he proposes to grant.
e) That the grant has the effect claimed by the holder of the instrument.
See AGBOOLA VS. UNITED BANK FOR AFRICA PLC (2011) 11 NWLR (PT. 1258) 375; THOMPSON VS. AROWOLO (2003) 7 NWLR (PT. 818) 163 and OJIBAH VS. OJIBAH (1991) 5 NWLR (PT. 191) 276.
It follows therefore that, a claimant who relies on production of title documents must prove the authenticity of the document and the authority of his vendor to alienate the land. In addition, the document must be an instrument of grant. See DABO VS. ABDULLAHI (2005) 7 NWLR (PT. 923) 181 and ROMAINE VS. ROMAINE (1992) 4 NWLR (PT. 238) 650.
Exhibit B, the receipt of payment is at page 11 of the printed record. It is the purchase receipt for a piece of land purchased from Odubona family, Igbeba, Ijebu-Ode. It is dated 1st of July, 1980. It is evident thereon that a sum of N2,000 (Two Thousand Naira) was collected from Alhaji Y.A. Ajede being payment for one (1) Plot of land at Odubona family layout, Igbeba road, Ijebu.
Exhibit B is thus, a receipt acknowledging that the sum of N2,000 was collected from the Appellant’s deceased father for the purchase of one plot of land at the Odubona family layout. It is not a document capable of conferring title to the land on the Appellant and her deceased father. I therefore hold that Exhibit B, the Purchase receipt is not a document of title.
From the pleadings and evidence adduced thereon at the trial Court, the Appellant traced her root of title to inheritance from her father who purchased the disputed land from the Odubona family. That is the case made out at the trial Court. The Appellant traced his root of title to the purchase of the land by her father under customary law. The requirements of a valid sale under customary law are as follows:
1) There must be payment of money or agreed consideration.
2) The transaction must be witnessed by witnesses.
3) The actual handing over of the land must be done in the presence of the same witnesses.
The Appellant tendered Exhibit B which is a receipt issued to her father when he purchased the land. I find Exhibit B to be evidence that the Appellant’s father paid the agreed consideration for the purchase of the disputed land. The Appellant in the Amended Statement of Claim contained at page 81 of the record averred as follows:
“(3a) Semiu Adekunle Ajede, one of the children of claimant’s father followed claimant’s father to purchase the land in dispute. The purchase receipt was handed over to claimant’s father after which the head of Odubona family, four other principal members of the family and Surveyor A.O. Adebogun took claimant’s father to the land he purchased (which is now in dispute) cut it round, prayed and handed over the land to claimant’s father in the presence of Semiu Adekunle Ajede who is the half-brother of the claimant.
(3b) Claimant’s father immediately took possession of the land and was weeding it regularly until he constructed a low fence round the land.
(4) Claimant states that the global survey plan of the said Odubona family layout was given to her late father, Alhaji Yisa Adenuga Ajede also known as Alhaji Y.A. Ajede. The land in dispute is edged red on the Survey Plan with Pillar numbers GL 255, GL 270 and GL 271. The Survey Plan dated 7/7/77 shall be relied upon at the trial of this matter.
(5) Consequent upon the demise of claimant’s father intestate on 13th April, 2004, the said land devolved on the claimant by virtue of Yoruba native law and custom. The receipt dated 1st July, 1980, and the Survey plan dated 7/7/77 were handed over to the claimant on inheriting the land.
(6) Claimant states categorically that she took possession of the land consequent upon her father’s death and she has been exercising ownership rights ever since without any let or hindrance from any quarters whatsoever.”
Semiu Adekunle Ajede, who the Claimant/Appellant pleaded, witnessed the purchase, testified for her as CW2 at the trial. He gave evidence of how he witnessed the transaction of sale as pleaded in paragraphs 3a and 3b of the Amended Statement of Claim. CW2 was not cross examined on the evidence led in paragraphs 3a and 3b (supra). His evidence that he was present when the payment was made and the land handed over to the claimant’s father was not challenged. See page 92 of the record.
I am of the firm view that, from the state of pleadings and evidence adduced thereon, the Appellant met the requirements for a valid sale of the disputed land under customary law.
The issues in this appeal are resolved in favour of the Appellant and against the Respondent.
The claim of the Appellant at the lower Court in the main is for declaration of title to land and trespass. Trespass to land is the wrongful and unauthorized invasion of the private property of another. Trespass to land is rooted in a right of exclusive possession of the land allegedly trespassed. It is actionable at the instance of the person in possession. See ORIORIO VS. OSAIN (2012) 16 NWLR (PT. 1327) 560; ENEH VS. OZOR (2016) 16 NWLR (PT. 1538) 219; ECHERE VS. EZIRIKE (2006) 12 NWLR (PT. 994) 386 and OKOKO VS. DAKOLO (2006) 14 NWLR (PT. 1000) 401.
The Appellant gave evidence of how her father was put into possession of the land after he purchased it. There is also evidence of how the Respondent erected an unauthorized fence on top that erected by the Appellant’s father. I have no doubt that the Appellant proved that the Respondent trespassed on the disputed land. She is therefore entitled to damages.
On the whole, I find merit in this appeal and it is accordingly allowed. The judgment of the Ogun State High Court delivered on 21st May, 2013 in Suit No. HCJ/90/2016 between ALHAJI L.O. YUSUF AND MR. OGUNLANA is hereby set aside.
Reliefs Nos. 1, 2 and 3 sought by the Appellant before the lower Court are granted as prayed. The Respondent, shall pay to the Appellant N100,000 as general damages for trespass. Relief Nos. 5 is refused.
The Respondent shall pay to the Appellant N50,000 as costs.
Appeal allowed.
JIMI OLUKAYODE BADA, J.C.A.: I read before now, the draft of the lead judgment of my Lord FOLASADE AYODEJI OJO, JCA just delivered.
Having also read the record of appeal as well as the briefs of argument filed on behalf of the parties. I will also emphasize that the requirements of sale of land under Customary Law are:-
(1) Payment of the agreed consideration i.e. Purchase Price.
(2) The transaction must have been concluded in the presence of persons who also witnessed the actual handing over of the land sold.
See- COLE VS FOLAMI (1956) SCNLR PAGE 180.
– AKINGBADE VS ELEMOSHO (1964) 1 ALL NLR PAGE 154.
– ERINOSHO VS OWOKONIRAN (1965) NMLR PAGE 479.
– AJADI VS OLANREWAJU (1969) 2 SCNLR PAGE 223.
– ODUSOGA & ANOTHER VS RICKETTS (1997) 7 NWLR PART 511 PAGE 1.
(3) The names of the witnesses and the facts of their having witnessed the sale transaction and handing over of the land to the purchaser must be pleaded and evidence adduced thereon — FOLARIN VS DUROJAIYE (1988) 1 NWLR PART 70 PAGE 351.
– IGBOKWE VS NLEMCHI (1996) 2 NWLR PART 429 PAGE 185.
The Appellant, in my view, has met the requirements for a valid sale of the disputed land under Customary Law.
My Lord has dealt with the issues in this appeal in a lucid manner and I agree with the reasons given as well as the conclusion reached that the appeal is meritorious.
I abide by the consequential orders made in the said lead judgment including the order as to cost.
UGOCHUKWU ANTHONY OGAKWU, J.C.A.: The lead judgment of my learned brother, Folasade Ayodeji Ojo, JCA, which has just been delivered was made available to me in draft.
I am allegiant to the reasoning and conclusion in the said lead judgment. I adopt the same as mine. I have nothing further to add.
For the reasoning and conclusion therein contained, I agree that the appeal is immensely meritorious. I equally allow the same. I abide by the consequential orders made in the lead judgment, inclusive of the order as to costs.
Appearances:
ALHAJI BALOGUN ADESEGUN ADEBAYO For Appellant(s)
SAMUEL ADENIJI, ESQ. For Respondent(s)