CITEC INT’L ESTATES LTD & ANOR v. STYLES TRENDS & FASHION LTD & ORS (2022)

CITEC INT’L ESTATES LTD & ANOR v. STYLES TRENDS & FASHION LTD & ORS

(2022)LCN/16298(CA)

In The Court Of Appeal

(ABUJA JUDICIAL DIVISION)

On Friday, February 04, 2022

CA/A/595/2015

Before Our Lordships:

Peter Olabisi Ige Justice of the Court of Appeal

ElfriedaOluwayemisi Williams-Dawodu Justice of the Court of Appeal

Danlami Zama Senchi Justice of the Court of Appeal

Between

1. CITEC INTERNATIONAL ESTATES LIMITED 2. MR. JINADU NURUDEEN APPELANT(S)

And

1. STYLES TRENDS AND FASHION LIMITED 2. MR. IFEANYI ISRAEL 3. MR. ANIH EJIKEME DAMIEN 4. MR. JOSEPH ZAKARI RESPONDENT(S)

RATIO:

A PARTY MUST ESTABLISH THAT A JUDGE FAILED TO ASCRIBE PROBATIVE VALUE TO EVIDENCE

IT IS THE DUTY OF THE TRIAL JUDGE TO WEIGH THE EVIDENCE IN THE CONTEXT OF THE SURROUNDING CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

DR SOGA OGUNDALU VS CHIEF A. E. O. MACJOB (2015) 3 SCM 113 AT 124 per RHODES-VIVOUR, JSC who said:-
“It is the duty of the trial Judge to receive all relevant evidence. That is perception. The next duty is to weigh the evidence in the context of the surrounding circumstances of the case. That is evaluation. A finding of fact involves both perception and evaluation.
Evaluation of relevant evidence before the trial Court and the ascription of probative value to such evidence are the primary function of the trial Court. This is so since that Court saw, heard and watched the demeanour of the witnesses when they gave evidence. Consequently, where this is done, the Appeal Court should always be reluctant to differ from the trial Judge’s finding. It is only where the trial Court failed to evaluate such evidence properly that an appellate Court can re-evaluate evidence. PETER OLABISI IGE, J.C.A.

THE EXCLUSIVE OWNERSHIP AND TITLE TO LAND IN DISPUTE

THE METHODS OF ACQUISITION OF TITLE TO LAND

The methods of acquisition of title to land have been stated and restated over the years. See the case of ZACHEUS FALEYE & ORS vs. MR. RASHEED DADA & ORS (2016) 15 NWLR (PT.1534) 80 AT 104 G – H TO 105 AD per PETER- ODILI, JSC who said:-
“It is perhaps appropriate at this stage to remind oneself of how ownership of land where the title the land is in dispute.
This is shown in the case of Idundun v. Okumagba (1976) 9 – 10 SC 227, they are:
1. By traditional evidence;
2. By production of document of title duly authenticated and executed;
3. By acts of ownership extending over a sufficient length of time numerous and positive enough as to warrant the inference of true ownership;
4. By acts of long possession and enjoyment;
5. By proof of possession of connected or adjacent land in circumstances rendering it probable that the owner of such connected or adjacent land would in addition, be the owner of the land in dispute.”
It needs be said that all the five methods do not have to be present before proof of the said ownership can be said to have been established as only one of the methods above stated if sufficient and this the plaintiff must prove by cogent. PETER OLABISI IGE, J.C.A.

THE SETTLED LAW ON THE OWNERSHIP OF LAND

See GRACE MADU V. DR. BETRAM MADU (2008) 6 NWLR (PART 1083) 296 at 319 D-H – 322 A-G per ADEREMI, JSC of blessed memory.
In the said judgment, ONU, JSC said on pages 324 H to 325 A-C said:
“Be it noted that it is well settled that the ownership of the land comprised in the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja is absolutely vested in the Federal Government of Nigeria vide Ona v. Atenda (2000) 5 NWLR (Pt. 656) page 244 at page 267 paragraphs C-D. See also Section 297(1) & (2) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, Section 236 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1979 and Section 1 (3) Federal Capital Territory, Act 1976. Section 18 of the Federal Capital Territory Act, Cap. 503 Law of the Federation of Nigeria, 1990 vests power in the Minister for the FCT to grant statutory rights of occupancy over land situate in the Federal Capital Territory to any person. By this law, ownership of land within the FCT vests in the Federal Government of Nigeria who through the Minister of FCT vest same to every citizen individually upon application. Thus without an allocation or grant by the Hon. Minister of the FCT, there is no way person including the respondent could acquire land in the FCT.” PETER OLABISI IGE, J.C.A.

PETER OLABISI IGE, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): By their Amended Statement of Claim dated 6th March, 2013 and filed on 7th March, 2013, the Respondents as the Plaintiffs claimed against the Appellants as the Defendants at the lower Court the following reliefs:-
“1.01 The Respondents (as Plaintiffs) instituted Suit No. FCT/HC/CV/4184/2012 at the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory by Writ of Summons, Statement of Claim and other Originating Processes filed on 26th July 2012; and by their Amended Writ of Summons and Amended Statement of Claim filed on 7th March, 2013 sought the following reliefs:
a. The sum of N50,000,000 (Fifty Million Naira) against the Defendants being damages for trespass to the Plaintiff’s land lying and situate at Plot 1851 Cadastral Zone C06 Nbora, FCT on 5th day of June, 2012.
b. The sum of N50,000,000 (Fifty Million Naira) against the Defendants for assault and battery, tort of intimidation, mental anguish and trauma occasioned the 2nd, 3rd and 4th Plaintiffs by the Defendants workers.
c. The sum of N152,000.00 (One Hundred and Fifty Two Thousand Naira) against the Defendants being thepurchase price of the 3rd Plaintiff’s Phone smashed by the Defendants.
d. AN ORDER of this Honourable Court directing the Defendants to immediately return or replace the Plaintiffs’ iron rods to wit:
(i) 1060 Length of Y16 (20 Tons) Iron rod
(ii) 1395 Length of Y12 (15 Tons) Iron rod
(iii) 550 Length of Y20 (10 Tons) Iron rod
(iv) 1050 Length of Y8 (5 Tons) Iron rod
e. In the ALTERNATIVE TO RELIEF (d) above, the sum of N10,000,000 (Ten Million Naira) against the Defendants being the cost of the Plaintiffs Iron rods carted away by the Defendants.
f. The sum of N250,000.00 (Two Hundred and Fifty Thousand Naira) against the Defendants being the cost of the excavation carried out by the Plaintiffs’ workers which was covered up by the Defendants.
g. AN ORDER OF PERPETUAL INJUNCTION restraining the Defendants, their agents, servants, privies, or howsoever called from further trespassing on the Plaintiffs’ land lying and situate at Plot 1851 Cadastral Zone C06 Nbora.”

The Appellants filed Statement of Defence to the action and included Counter-Claim against the Plaintiffs/Respondents as follows:-
“i. ADECLARATION that the Plaintiffs/Defendants to Counter-claim’s report to the Nigeria Police Force as well as the Plaintiffs/Defendants to the Counter-claim’s acts in seeking to forcefully and fraudulently retain Plot 1851 measuring about 4.99ha lying at Cadastral Zone C06 Mbora FCT in File No. MISC 104977 contained in the Site Plan attached to the Statement of Claim is unlawful, arbitrary, capricious, and malicious; as well as a gross abuse of judicial process with malicious intent towards each of the Counter-claimants.
ii. A DECLARATION that the 1st Defendant/ Counter-claimant is entitled to possessory benefit and title to all the land known and described as Plot 1851 measuring about 4:99ha lying at Cadastral Zone C06 Mbora FCT in File No. MISC 104977 contained in the Site Plan attached to the Plaintiffs/Defendants to the Counter-claim’s Statement of Claim in so far as it encroaches into Annexure Citec 5.
iii. AN ORDER directing the Plaintiffs/Defendants to the Counter-claim to pay the sum of N50,000,000 (Fifty Million Naira) only as general damages to the 1st Defendant/Counter-claimant for their acts of trespass on the 1st Defendant/Counter-claimant’sproperty.
iv. AN ORDER directing the Plaintiffs/ Defendants to the Counter-claim to pay the sum of N50,000,000 (Fifty Million Naira) only to each of the Defendants/Counter-claimants on the footing of exemplary and aggravated damages for their unlawful, arbitrary, capricious, and malicious conduct and allegations as well as abuse of judicial process to the detriment and injury to the reputation of both Defendants/Counter-claimants.
v. AN ORDER directing the Plaintiffs/Defendants to the Counter-claimants to pay the sums awarded in damages in (iii) and (iv) above at the rate of 4% above the Central Bank of Nigeria Monetary Policy Rate (MPR) per annum from the date of institution of the Counter-claim to the date of judgment; and per annum from the date of Judgment till the Judgment Debt is finally satisfied or liquidated.
vi. AN ORDER of perpetual injunction restraining the Plaintiffs/Defendants to the Counter-claim by themselves, agents, servants, privies or howsoever called from taking any steps, doing any act or otherwise dealing in or with the parcel of land described as Plot 1851 measuring about 4:99ha lying at Cadastral Zone C06 Mbora FCT inFile No. MISC 104977 contained in the Site Plan attached to the Statement of Claim in violation of the affirmed, vested and subsisting rights of the 1st Defendant/Counter-cIaimant as depicted vide Survey Plan – Annexure Citec 5.
vii. Taxed cost of this action in favour of each of the Defendants/Counter-cIaimants against the Plaintiffs/ Defendants to the Counter-claim jointly and severally.”

After pleadings have been duly exchanged between the parties the matter proceeded to hearing at the end of which the lower Court in its judgment delivered on Friday 5th June, 2015 found against the Appellants as follows:-
“Suffice to say that the counter-claim has not been proved and is liable to fail. Issue number two is therefore resolved in favour of the plaintiffs. In conclusion and in the light of the above the entire counter-claims of the plaintiff fail and are hereby accordingly dismissed.
The plaintiffs’ claims for N152,000.00 (One Hundred and Fifty Two Thousand Naira) purchase price of 3rd plaintiff’s smashed phone fail and is hereby dismissed.
The plaintiff’s claims for return or replacement of iron rods or payment of cost ofN10,000,000.00 (Ten Million Naira) for iron rods fail and are also hereby accordingly dismissed.
The outstanding claims of the plaintiffs succeed and orders in respect thereof are accordingly made as follows:
1. That the defendants pay to the plaintiffs the sum of N2,000,000.00 (Two Million Naira) damages for trespass to the plaintiffs’ land lying and situate at plot 1851 Cadastral Zone COG NBORA, ECT on the 5th day June, 2012.
2. That the defendants pay to the plaintiffs the sum of N1,000,000.00 (One Million Naira) for assault and mental anguish and trauma occasioned the 2nd, 3rd & 4th plaintiffs by defendants’ workers.
3. That the defendants pay to the plaintiff the sum of N250,000.00 (Two Hundred and Fifty Thousand Naira) for cost of excavation work covered up by defendants.
And
4. Order of injunction is also hereby made against the defendants, their agents, servants, privies, or howsoever called from further trespassing on the plaintiffs’ land lying and situate at plot No. 1851 Cadastral Zone C06 Nbora.
(SIGNED)
HONOURABLE JUDGE.”

The Appellants were dissatisfied by the decision and have appealed tothis Court vide their Notice and Grounds of Appeal dated and filed the 24th day of July, 2015 containing (7) seven grounds of appeal which without their particulars are as follows:-
“2.0 PART OF THE DECISION COMPLAINED OF:
The part of the decision as set out in the following Grounds of Appeal.
3.0 GROUNDS OF APPEAL
3.1 GROUND ONE (1)
The learned trial Judge erred in law and thereby occasioned a miscarriage of justice to the Appellants when the lower Court held at page 31 of the judgment that:
“There’s no concrete evidence by the Defendant in proof of a subsisting title to the land. This Court should not be expected to believe the mere assertion of the defendants that they have a subsisting lease for the land without any further particulars or documentary evidence before the Court to prove their title to the land, thus the Defendants cannot be allowed to contradict or discredit the contents of the statutory Right of Occupancy by oral evidence … The Defendants have not succeeded in discrediting the evidence of the Plaintiffs in respect of the said Offer of Statutory Right of Occupancy…”
3.2 GROUND TWO (2)

The learned trial Judge erred in law and thereby occasioned a miscarriage of justice to the Appellants when it was held at page 32 of the judgment by the lower Court that:
“The evidence of title presented by the Plaintiff under the circumstances appears more credible, thus representing a better title to the land, than those presented by the Defendants… Suffice to say that the Plaintiffs have succeeded in showing that the 1st Plaintiff has led evidence to show a better title to the land in question that the 1st Defendant to the extent that this Court would not be on a fruitless exercise in going further to consider whether or not the Defendants are liable in damages for trespass and other collateral claims…”
3.3 GROUND THREE (3)
The learned trial Judge erred in law and thereby occasioned a miscarriage of justice to the Appellants when it was held at Pages 33-35 of the judgment of the lower Court that:
“This Court had previously found as elucidated… that the Defendant have not succeed in showing a better title than that of the Plaintiff for the land in respect of which this dispute arose… The Defendants have not on their ownpart led any evidence to establish that they were in exclusive possession of the land. The ipse dixit of counsel of exclusive possession nor even mere allusion of same under the circumstances would not be sufficient to establish their exclusive possession already recounted by the Plaintiffs… In view of the Plaintiff’s possession of the land presented before the Court would therefore amount to trespass.”
3.4 GROUND FOUR (4)
The learned trial Judge erred in law and thereby occasioned a miscarriage of justice to the Appellants when it was held at pages 37-38 of the judgment by the lower Court that:
“… The Plaintiffs’ burden in this regard therefore is that of minimal proof, which to my mind has been discharged by the Plaintiffs. And as such this Court has to accept same act on it. This Court therefore finds in favour of the 2nd, 3rd and 4th Plaintiffs in respect of their claim against the Defendants for assault, tort of intimidation, mental anguish and trauma occasioned by its workers… The assault and tort of intimidation have therefore been proved.”
3.05 GROUND FIVE (5)
The learned trial Judge erred in law andthereby occasioned a miscarriage of justice to the Appellants when it was held at page 41 of the judgment by the lower Court that:
“The Plaintiffs having successfully established exclusive possession, a better title that the Defendants and trespass against the Defendants, ought ordinary to be entitled to an order of injunction against the defendants… The claim for perpetual injunction would have to succeed under the circumstances.”
3.6 GROUND SIX (6)
The learned trial Judge erred in law and thereby occasioned a miscarriage of justice to the Appellants when the lower Court failed to consider the Counter-claim of the merit and when it held at pages 43-44 of its judgment that:
“… The declarations sought have not been proved on the merit. The Defendants/ Counter-claimant’s cannot rely on weakness of the Plaintiffs/ Defendants to the Counter-claim’s case for establishment of their claim; same must be proved on the merit… suffice to say that the Counter-claim has not been proved and is liable to fail”.
3.7 GROUNDS SEVEN (7)
The judgment of the lower Court is against the weight of evidence.
4.0 RELIEFS SOUGHT FROMTHE COURT OF APPEAL
i. AN ORDER pursuant to Section 15 Court of Appeal Act Cap C36 LFN, 2004 setting aside the judgment of the Honorable Justice M. E. Anenih sitting at the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Maitama Abuja in Suit No. FCT/HC/CV/4184/2012 delivered on 5th June, 2015; and its stead dismissing the entire Amended Statement of Claim of the Respondents (as Plaintiffs) filed in Suit No. FCT/HC/CV/4184/2012 on 7th March, 2012 at the lower Court.
ii. AN ORDER allowing the Counter-claim of the Appellants (as Defendants/Counterclaimants) against each of the Respondents Plaintiffs/Defendants to the Counter-claim) jointly and severally filed on August, 2012 in Suit No. FCT/HC/CV/418412012 at the lower Court.
iii. AN ORDER pursuant to Section 15 Court of Appeal Act Cap C36 LFN, 2004 directing the Respondents to jointly and severally pay to the Appellants’ costs in respect of Suit No. FCT/HC/CV/4184/2012 at the lower Court well as of the present appeal.”

The Appellants’ Brief of Argument was dated and filed on 21st day of October, 2015. It was deemed properly filed and served on 24th January, 2017.

When the appeal came up for hearing on 9th day of November, 2021, the learned Counsel to the Respondents ALEXANDER OKETA, ESQ. informed the Court that the Respondents “are not interested in filing any Brief on behalf of the Respondents.”

The Appellants’ learned Counsel OMOTAYO IBRAHIM, ESQ. then argued the appeal.

The Appellants distilled (3) three issues for determination of the appeal viz:-
i. Whether the trial Court decided erroneously in holding that the Respondents had possession, as well as beneficial and better title to the landed property in dispute than the Appellants.
This issue is culled from the combined effect of Grounds 1, 2, and 3 of the Notice of Appeal.
ii. Whether the trial Court decided erroneously in awarding damages in favour of the Respondents against the Appellants for purported trespass; assault and mental anguish as well as trauma occasioned the 2nd, 3rd and 4th Respondents cost of purported excavation work as well as an Order of injunction against the Appellants, their agents, servants, privies, or however so called from further trespassing on the landed property under dispute.
This issue is culled from the combined effect of Grounds 4 and 5 of the Notice of Appeal.
iii. Whether the trial Court decided erroneously in dismissing the Appellants’ Counter-claim and refusing damages counterclaimed.
This issue is culled from Grounds 6 and 7 of the Notice of Appeal.”

The appeal will be determined on the three issues nominated by the Appellants. The Appellants’ learned Counsel argued issues 1 and 3 together.

The learned Counsel to the Appellant stated that they acquired title to the land in dispute vide a Development Lease Agreement dated 2nd May, 2002 as well as Construction Agreement dated 6th August, 2001 tendered as Exhibit “U” and “T” respectively. He claimed that the Appellants’ title to the said land was reaffirmed on 31st May, 2011 and 8th June, 2011 vide Terms of Agreement dated 31st May, 2011 filed on 8th June, 2011 in Suit No. FCT/HC/CV/1176/2008 between the 1st Appellant (as Plaintiff) and the Minister of Federal Capital Territory & other as Defendants which learned Counsel stated was tendered as Exhibit “P”. That the documents firmly established that the 1st Appellant is the lawful allottee of all that parcel of land measuring 225.355 Hectares at MBORA DISTRICT ABUJA since at least May, 2022. He drew attention to what he called the uncontradicted and unchallenged evidence of the DW1, DW2 and DW3 and Exhibits P, S, T, U, P1 and P2 to contend that the Appellants own the land in dispute and had being in prior possession of the land since 2002 until 2011 when Respondent came in by “mere alleged title granted in 2010”. He submitted that a mere offer of Statutory Right of Occupancy in 2010 vide Exhibit “A” cannot displace the Appellants’ title to the land relying on the cases of:
1. OKHUAROBO & ORS V AIGBE (2002) 9 NWLR (PART 771) 29 AT 88 A-C;
2. ADELAJA V FANOIKI & ANOR (1990) 2 NWLR (PART 131) 137, 151;
3. BADIRU V BISIRIYU (1997) 5 NWLR (PART 504) 290 AT 295 B-C among other cases.

That on the preponderance of evidence, the Respondents failed abysmally to discharge the onus placed upon the 1st Respondent. He relied on BELLO& ORS V SANDA & ORS (2012) 1 NWLR (PART 1281) 219.

It is the submission of the Appellants that even if Exhibit “A” could be regarded as Certificate of Occupancy it has been displaced by Exhibit “S” relying on the cases of OGUNLEYE V ONI(1990) 2 NWLR (PART 135) 745 and AJIBULU V AJAYI (2004) 2 NWLR (PART 392) 483. That there was no demonstration on the part of 1st Respondent on how it came about the title it claimed vide Exhibit “A” as according to Appellants’ Learned Counsel, it is not enough to tender a document. That the Court is bound to evaluate the documents tendered. He also contended that the Respondents failed to show any competence to institute the action. He finally urged the Court to hold that the 1st Appellant has established before the trial Court its title to the land in dispute and other reliefs sought. He relied on the cases of ROMAINE VS ROMAINE (1992) 4 NWLR (PART 238) 650 AT 6662 and NBC PLC V. UBANI (2014) 4 NWLR (PART 1398) 421 AT 460 B-F.

On issue No. 2 which contends that the lower Court erroneously awarded damages in favour of Respondents against the Appellants or what he called “for purported trespass, assault and mental anguish as well as trauma occasioned by 2nd, 3rd and 4th Respondents” the learned Counsel to the Appellants submitted that the lower Court erred in law. According to the Appellants’ learned Counsel, the Respondents failed to discharge the burdenof proof cast on the Respondents for a successful claim of damages for trespass. That the Respondent failed to establish their possession to the land in dispute and that the Respondents’ claims are spurious. He stated that the Appellants’ evidence before the lower Court demonstrated an overriding better title to the land in dispute coupled with evidence of possession and act of ownership. He submitted that the lower Court was also wrong in granting injunctive orders against the Appellants in the face of Respondents’ failure to establish any better title to the land. He relied on the following cases:
1. FAGUNWA & ANOR V ADIBI & ORS (2004) 17 NWLR (PART 903) 544 AT 569,
2. OYENEYIN & ANOR V AKINKUGBE & ANOR (2010) 4 NWLR (PART 1184) 265 AT 295,
3. OKOKO V DAKOLO (2006) 14 NWLR (PART 1000) 401 AT 429-430 G-B.

He submitted the Respondents cannot rely on the weaknesses in the Appellants’ case but must establish their right to the declaration sought on the strength of their own case. He cited AKINDURO V ALAYA(2007) 15 NWLR (PT. 1057) 312 AT 330.

He accused the lower Court of failure to properly evaluate the evidence before it. In all, he urged the Court to set aside the lower Court’s judgment on the ground that it is perverse.

RESOLUTION OF ISSUES RAISED FOR DETERMINATION
Now pursuant to Order 19 Rule 2 of the Court of Appeal Rules 2021 an Appellant must within forty-five (45) days of the service on him of the Record of Appeal from the lower Court file in this Court a Brief of Argument succinctly encapsulating all arguments or submissions the Appellant intends to sustain his appeal to this Court.
In like manner, the Respondent(s) to the appeal shall within 30 days of the service of Appellant’s Brief upon him file Respondent’s Brief of Argument which must answer all material points of substance contained in the Appellant’s Brief of Argument and points conceded and the reasons why the appeal ought to be dismissed and judgment of lower Court affirmed.

It must be stated in this judgment that the learned Counsel to the Respondents informed this Court that the Respondents did not file Respondents’ Brief of Argument and had no intention of filing any Brief of Argument.
However, this failure on the part of the Respondents will not translate into automatic win for the Appellants. The Court will still consider the appeal on the merit based on the Appellant’s Brief of Argument. See ALHAJI JIBRIN ISAH VS INEC & ORS (2016) 18 NWLR (PART 1544) 175 at 214 C per RHODES-VIVOUR JSC who said:
“Learned Counsel for the 3rd respondent did not file a brief and there was no representation for the 3rd respondent in Court at hearing of this appeal, I must observe that a judgment appealed against is in favour of the respondent and so the fact that the 3rd respondent did not file a brief is of no advantage to the appellant. The appellant is expected to file a brief and argue his appeal.”

Therefore I will consider the arguments of the Appellants as contained in the Appellants’ Brief of Argument in the interest of justice in order to determine the merit of the appeal.

It is trite that an Appellant who complains that the decision of lower Court is perverse for lack of adequate or proper evaluation of oral and documentary evidence must establish that the lower Court made improper use of opportunity of its having seen, observed and heard the witnesses testified. He must establish that the learned trial Judge failed to ascribe probative value to evidence led or that wrong inferences were drawn by the trial Court thereby leading to wrong conclusion making it imperative for Appellate Court to interfere and reevaluate the evidence in order to obviate injustice. See.
1. DR SOGA OGUNDALU VS CHIEF A. E. O. MACJOB (2015) 3 SCM 113 AT 124 per RHODES-VIVOUR, JSC who said:-
“It is the duty of the trial Judge to receive all relevant evidence. That is perception. The next duty is to weigh the evidence in the context of the surrounding circumstances of the case. That is evaluation. A finding of fact involves both perception and evaluation.
Evaluation of relevant evidence before the trial Court and the ascription of probative value to such evidence are the primary function of the trial Court. This is so since that Court saw, heard and watched the demeanour of the witnesses when they gave evidence. Consequently, where this is done, the Appeal Court should always be reluctant to differ from the trial Judge’s finding. It is only where the trial Court failed to evaluate such evidence properly that an appellate Court can re-evaluate evidence.

Furthermore, evaluation of a document is not within the exclusive preserve of the trial Court. A trial Court and an appellate Court have equal rights in evaluation of documentary evidence.
2. MR. LABARAN MAKU VS ALHAJI UMARU TANKO ALMAKURA (2016) SCM 124 AT 140 C per M.D. MUHAMMAD, JSC.

Where as in this case, the Appellants and the Respondents are each laying exclusive ownership and title to the land in dispute they must establish their respective root of title or how each of them became the owner of the land in dispute each relying on strength of his own case by calling credible or believable evidence to vest title in one of them as two of them cannot have possession or title in the land in dispute simultaneously. There can be no such thing as concurrent possession by two persons claiming adversely to each other, one must have a better title or right of occupancy over the land in dispute than the other. See AYINLA V. SIJUWOLA (1984) SCNLR 410 at 426., satisfactory and conclusive evidence. I rely on Aikhionbare v. Enogie (1976) 12 SC II.
The methods of acquisition of title to land have been stated and restated over the years. See the case of ZACHEUS FALEYE & ORS vs. MR. RASHEED DADA & ORS (2016) 15 NWLR (PT.1534) 80 AT 104 G – H TO 105 AD per PETER- ODILI, JSC who said:-
“It is perhaps appropriate at this stage to remind oneself of how ownership of land where the title the land is in dispute.
This is shown in the case of Idundun v. Okumagba (1976) 9 – 10 SC 227, they are:
1. By traditional evidence;
2. By production of document of title duly authenticated and executed;
3. By acts of ownership extending over a sufficient length of time numerous and positive enough as to warrant the inference of true ownership;
4. By acts of long possession and enjoyment;
5. By proof of possession of connected or adjacent land in circumstances rendering it probable that the owner of such connected or adjacent land would in addition, be the owner of the land in dispute.”
It needs be said that all the five methods do not have to be present before proof of the said ownership can be said to have been established as only one of the methods above stated if sufficient and this the plaintiff must prove by cogent
To be good enough, a plaintiff whorelies on traditional evidence as in the case in hand must show the following:
1. The founder of the land;
2. The mode of founding or discovery of the land;
3. The history of the devolution of the land to the present claimants.
I place reliance on Piaro v. Tenalo (1976) 12 SC 31; Ohiaeri v. Akabeze (1992) 2 Nm.R (Pt. 221) Anyanwu v. Mbara (1992) 5 Nm.R (Pt. 242) 386.”

The Respondents pleaded in paragraphs 1-15 of their Amended Statement of Claim contained on pages 195-198 as follows:-
“1. The 1st Plaintiff is a limited liability company duly registered under the relevant laws in Nigeria.
2. The 2nd and 3rd and 4th plaintiffs are managers and staff of the 1st Plaintiff respectively.
3. The 1st defendant is a limited liability duly registered under the relevant laws in Nigeria.
4. The 2nd defendant is a staff and manager of the 1st defendant.
5. The 1st plaintiff is the bona fide owner of all the land described as plot 1851 measuring about 4.99ha lying at Cadastral Zone C06 Nbora, FCT with file No. MISC 104977. Copy of the Statutory Right of Occupancy issued to the plaintiff is hereby pleaded.

6. On the 5th day of June 2012, the 2nd, 3rd and 4th plaintiff and their manual workers were on the plaintiffs’ said land working when some group of fierce looking men numbering about forty-five (45), acting on the instruction of the defendants stormed the site and beat up the 2nd, 3rd and 4th plaintiffs and their workers mercilessly, tore their cloths, destroyed their properties and bundled them out of the land. The plaintiffs plead and shall rely on their cloths torn by the defendants during attack.
7. The 3rd plaintiff avers that his Nokia N9 phone was seized and smashed on the ground when he attempted putting up a call for help. The phone was destroyed beyond repairs. The 3rd plaintiff avers that he bought the said phone for the sum of 152,000.00 (One Hundred and Fifty Two Thousand Naira). The receipt of purchase is pleaded.
8. The plaintiffs aver that the excavation which is worth over N250,000 (Two Hundred and Fifty Thousand Naira) done by its workers were covered up and bacons destroyed by the defendants.
9. The 2nd, 3rd and 4th plaintiffs aver that when they visited the land the next day being 6th of June, 2012, the iron rodsworth over N10,000,000 intended to be used for the construction had been carted away by the defendants’ workers who came to attack them the previous day. The particulars of the iron are as follows:
(e) 1060 Length of Y16 (20 Tons) Iron rod
(f) 1395 Length of Y12 (15 Tons) Iron rod
(g) 550 Length of Y20 (10 Tons) Iron rod
(h) 1050 Length of Y8 (5 Tons) Iron rod
10. The said plaintiff bought the said iron rods from Chidex Holdings on 30/5/12 and same were acknowledged receipt at plot 1851, Cadastral Zone C06 Nbora, FCT, Abuja. Receipt of purchase of the rods and the way bill delivery note issued on delivery of the goods by the driver of the truck bearing XA 477 XXE are pleaded.
11. The plaintiffs aver that the 2nd defendant claimed that the land was in the process of being allocated to his company, the 1st defendant.
12. The plaintiffs aver that the case was swiftly reported to the Life Camp Police Station and later transferred to the Nigeria Police Force Zonal Headquarters, Wuse Zone 7, Abuja. The plaintiffs shall rely on the statement of the 2nd defendant and other of his men who were invited by the police in thecourse of investigation. Reliance shall also be placed on the report of investigation by the police.
13. The 2nd defendant has boasted that he is not only connected to the top echelon of the Nigeria Police and cannot be called to order but claimed to be financially poised to triumphantly fight any battle as far as Nigeria is concerned. He said that he has dealt with several people in like manner but their several petitions to the police could not shake him. He venomously threatened to kill the plaintiff’s workers the next time they would set their foot on the land.
14. The plaintiffs aver that the defendants have no title or any title document of any sort in respect of the land in issue, but only claimed that the land was in the process of being re-allocated to them.
15. The plaintiffs suffered serious damages, humiliation, intimidation, mental trauma and anguish as a result of the defendants wrongful acts aforementioned.
16. WHEREOF the plaintiffs are seriously aggrieved.”

On the other hand, the Appellants as Defendants/ Counter-claimants pleaded in paragraphs 1, 2, 15 and 16 of their Statement of Defence as follows:-

“1. The Defendants deny paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16 of the Plaintiffs’ Statement of Claim as false and put the Plaintiffs to the strictest proof.
2. The Defendants shall lead evidence to show and demonstrate as follows:-
i. That the 1st Defendant is the lawful allottee and beneficial owner of all that parcel of land measuring 225.355 Hectares at Mbora District more particularly described in the Development Lease Agreement dated 2nd May, 2002 executed between the 1st Defendant on the one hand. and the Ministry of the Federal Capital Territory on the other, with the approval and concurrence of the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria; as well as Construction Agreement dated 6th August, 2001 between the duo of the Ministry of the Federal Capital Territory and the Federal Housing Authority, on the one hand and the 1st Defendant on the other.
ii. That following protracted litigation between the 1st Defendant on the one hand and the duo of the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory and the Federal Capital Development Authority on the other, the 1st Defendant’s title to the said parcel of land described in paragraph 2(i) above was re-affirmed on 31st May, 2011 and 8th June, 2011 in terms of 109 Hectares in the Survey Plan attached as part of Schedule A to the Terms of Agreement dated 31st May, 2011 but filed on 8th June, 2011 in Suit No. FCT/HC/CV/1176/2008 between the 1st Defendant (as Plaintiff) and the trio of the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory, Federal Capital Development Authority and Diplomat Company Limited (as Defendants).
iii. That the said Minister of the Federal Capital Territory and Federal Capital Development Authority have expressly “acknowledged that the [1st Defendant] was first in lawful possession and settlement of the said [parcel of land] upon a legitimate grant by them to the 1st Defendant]” with the full approval and re-affirmation of the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria both from around 2001 and again in 2011.
iv. That the Defendants shall at the trial of this suit rely on the involving documents for their respective full effect and value:-
(a) Construction Agreement dated 6th August, 2011 between the duo of the Ministry of the Federal Capital Territory and The Federal Housing Authority on the one hand, and the Defendant on the other Annexure Citec 1 Series.
(b) Development Lease Agreement dated 2nd May, 2012 executed between the 1st Defendant on the one hand, and the Ministry of the Federal Capital Territory on the other, with the approval and concurrence of the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. Annexure Citec 2 Series.
(c) Terms of Settlement (including Schedule A Documents) in Suit No. FCT/HC/CV/1176/2008 between the 1st Defendant (as Plaintiff) and the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory, Federal Capital Development Authority (FCDA), and Diplomat Property Limited (as 1st-3rd Defendants) dated 31st May, 2011 and filed on 8th June, 2011. Copies are attached as Annexures Citec 3 Series.
(d) Letter referenced HM/FCT/MO/01/V.1/74 of 2nd June, 2001 from the Minister FCT to the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria together with manuscripted endorsement and attached Map/Plan as well as Composite Site Plan showing and demonstrating co-ordinates bearing as well as interrelationship of claim. Copies attached as Annexures Citec 4 Series and Citec 5.”

The Defendants/Counterclaimants repeat and adopt paragraphs 1-14 of the Statement of Defence in proof of their Counterclaim.
16. By reason of the foregoing, the Defendants/Counter-claimants have suffered loss and damage and Counter-claim jointly and severally against the Plaintiffs/Defendants to the Counter-claim as follows:-
(i) A DECLARATION that the Plaintiffs/Defendants to Counter-claimant’s report to the Nigeria Police Force as well as the Plaintiffs/Defendants to the Counter-claim’s acts in seeking to forcefully and fraudulently retain Plot 1851 measuring about 4.99ha lying at Cadastral Zone C06 Mbora FCT in File No. MISC 104977 contained in the Site Plan attached to the Statement of Claim is unlawful, arbitrary, capricious. and malicious: as well as a gross abuse of judicial process with malicious intent towards each of the Counter-claimants.
(ii) A DECLARATION that the 1st Defendant/Counter-claimant is entitled to possessory benefit and title to all the land known and described as Plot 1851 measuring about 4:99ha lying at Cadastral Zone C06 Mbora FCT in File No. MISC 104977 contained in the Site Plan attached to the Plaintiffs/Defendants to the Counter-claim’s Statement of Claim in so far as it encroaches into Annexure Citec 5.
(iii) AN ORDER directing the Plaintiffs/Defendants to the Counter-claim to pay the sum of N50,000,000 (Fifty Million Naira) only as general damages to the 1st Defendant/Counter-claimant for their acts of trespass on the 1st Defendant/Counter-claimant’s property.
(iv) AN ORDER directing the Plaintiffs/Defendants to the Counter-claim to pay the sum of N50,000,000 (Fifty Million Naira) only to each of the Defendants/Counter-claimants on the footing of exemplary and aggravated damages for their unlawful, arbitrary, capricious, and malicious conduct and allegations as well as abuse of judicial process to the detriment and injury to the reputation of both Defendants/Counter-claimants.
(v) AN ORDER directing the Plaintiffs/Defendants to the Counter-claim to pay the sum of N50,000,000 (Fifty Million Naira) only to each of the Defendants/ Counter-claimants on the footing of exemplary and aggravated damages for their unlawful, arbitrary, capricious, and malicious conduct and allegations as well as abuse of judicial process to the detriment andinjury to the reputation of both Defendants/Counter-claimants.
(vi) AN ORDER directing the Plaintiffs/Defendants to the Counter-claimants to pay the sums awarded in damages in (iii) and (iv) above at the rate of 4% above the Central Bank of Nigeria Monetary Policy Rate (MPR) per annum from the date of institution of the Counter-claim to the date of judgment; and per annum from the date of Judgment till the Judgment Debt is finally satisfied or liquidated.
(vii) AN ORDER of perpetual injunction restraining the Plaintiffs/Defendants to the Counter-claim by themselves, agents, servants, privies or howsoever called from taking any steps, doing any act or otherwise dealing in or with the parcel of land described as Plot 1851 measuring about 4:99ha lying at Cadastral Zone C06 Mbora FCT in File No. MISC 104977 contained in the Site Plan attached to the Statement of Claim in violation of the affirmed, vested and subsisting rights of the 1st Defendant/Counter-claimant as depicted vide Survey Plan – Annexure Citec 5.
(viii) Taxed cost of this action in favour of each of the Defendants/Counter-claimants against the Plaintiffs/ Defendants to theCounter-claim jointly and severally.”

The Appellants as can be seen above relied on Construction Agreement dated 6th August 2011, Exhibit “T” Development Lease Agreement dated 2nd May 2012 Exhibit “U” and Terms of Settlement dated 31st May 2011 and June 8, 2011 marked Exhibit “P” respectively.

I am of the firm view that none of the Exhibits and documents relied upon by the Appellants confers any Statutory Rights of Occupancy on the Appellants. The said documents did not vest any form of ownership or title in the land in dispute in the Appellants.

The Respondent, on the other hand, tendered Exhibit “A” which is Offer of Statutory Right of Occupancy dated 23rd February, 2010 which vests the ownership and Statutory Rights of Occupancy over the land in dispute in the 1st Plaintiff pursuant to the Provisions of Land Use Act.

I have read the pleadings of the parties, the evidence led on either side and the documents tendered and I am of the firm view that the lower Court was right in holding that the Appellants have not shown by any of the methods legally laid down for proving ownership of land and particularly in Federal Capital Territory that the land in dispute belongs to them.

The facts remain that the only person who can allocate land in the Federal Capital Territory Abuja or sign any document relating to Statutory Right of Occupancy in the Federal Capital Territory is the Honourable Minister of Federal Capital Territory or any person to whom he has legally delegated his powers to act on his behalf.
Learned trial Judge cannot be faulted for his findings or decision. See GRACE MADU V. DR. BETRAM MADU (2008) 6 NWLR (PART 1083) 296 at 319 D-H – 322 A-G per ADEREMI, JSC of blessed memory.
In the said judgment, ONU, JSC said on pages 324 H to 325 A-C said:
“Be it noted that it is well settled that the ownership of the land comprised in the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja is absolutely vested in the Federal Government of Nigeria vide Ona v. Atenda (2000) 5 NWLR (Pt. 656) page 244 at page 267 paragraphs C-D. See also Section 297(1) & (2) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, Section 236 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1979 and Section 1 (3) Federal Capital Territory, Act 1976. Section 18 of the Federal Capital Territory Act, Cap. 503 Law of the Federation of Nigeria, 1990 vests power in the Minister for the FCT to grant statutory rights of occupancy over land situate in the Federal Capital Territory to any person. By this law, ownership of land within the FCT vests in the Federal Government of Nigeria who through the Minister of FCT vest same to every citizen individually upon application. Thus without an allocation or grant by the Hon. Minister of the FCT, there is no way person including the respondent could acquire land in the FCT.”

Very recently the apex Court in the land took time to explain the status of the Federal Capital Territory, Hon. Minister of the FCT and Federal Capital Territory Development Authority in the case of HAJIA YINUSA BAKARI VS. DEACONESS (MRS) FELICIA OGUNDIPE & ORS (2021) 5 NWLR (PART 1768) 1 at 36 E-H to 37 A-D per RHODES- VIVOUR, JSC who said:-
“It is very important to decide the status of Abuja and whether the 2nd and 3rd respondents are Agencies of the Federal Government of Nigeria. A decision would lay to rest once and for all time proper Court to hear the plaintiff’s claim.
Section 299 of the Constitution states that:
“299. The provisions of this Constitution shall apply to the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja as if it were one of the States of the Federation; and accordingly-
(a) all the Legislative powers, the executive powers and the judicial powers vested in the House of Assembly, the Governor of a State and in the Courts of a State shall respectively, vest in the National Assembly, the President of the Federation and in the Courts which by virtue of the foregoing provisions are Courts established for the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja;
(b) all the powers referred to in paragraph (a) of this Section shall be exercised in accordance with the provisions of this Constitution; and
(c) the provisions of this Constitution pertaining to the matters aforesaid shall be read with such modifications and adaptations as may be reasonably necessary to bring them into conformity with the provisions of this Section.
By virtue of the provisions of Section 299 of the Constitution, it is so clear that Abuja, the Federal Capital of Nigeria has the status of a State. It is as if it is one of the States of the Federation. An agency is an executive or regulatory body of a state, such as State Offices, Departments, Divisions, Bureaus, Boards and Commissions.
The 2nd respondent, i.e. the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory, though a Minister of the Federal Government occupies a similar position of Governor of a State, since Abuja is classified as a State by Section 299 of the Constitution. The 2nd respondent is thus the Chief Executive of the Federal Capital Abuja.
The Federal Capital Development Authority i.e. the 3rd Respondent is established by Section 3 of the Federal Capital Territory Act. It is a Governmental Agency of the Federal Territory, Abuja.
It is the actions of the 2nd and 3rd respondents that are challenged. They are both agents of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, which has the status of a State. They are not agencies of the Federal Government of Nigeria.”
I am of the view that since the Hon. Minister of the Federal Capital Territory occupies similar position like the Governor of a State, the Hon. Minister of Federal Capital Territory can also like a Governor of a State in the Federation of Nigeria act through Agent or Officials of Federal Capital Development Authority. Letters of allocation of land can be signed by any official of the FCTA or Federal Capital Development Administration on behalf of the Hon. Minister or by whom such power(s) is delegated by him.

The lower Court was thus correct when he held on page 362 of the Record of Appeal as follows:-
“There’s nothing in the above mentioned Sections and other provisions of the Land Use Act remotely suggesting that ownership of land is acquired by Construction Agreement, Development Lease Agreement, Terms of Settlement or Letters from the Minister of FCT and the President. However the said Land Use Act gives the Governor or Local Government as the case may be the powers to grant Statutory or Customary Right of Occupancy. Thus suffice to say that the evidence led and documents placed before the Court by the defendants for proof of ownership of the land are not ordinarily contemplated in the Land Use Act as instruments of grant, transfer or alienation of land. Meanwhile on the other hand, the Offer of Statutory Right of Occupancy placed before the Court by the 1st plaintiff as evidence of its claims in respect of the land is contemplated by the Land Use Act as a means of alienation of land in line with Sc. 5 thereof.

The Respondents proved their entitlement to the land in dispute vide Exhibit “A” and have thus shown that the 1st Respondent has a better title to the land in dispute. The Appellants have not at all demonstrated by any jot of evidence that they are the owners of the land in dispute. The Appellants all and singular are not the owners of the land in dispute.
Issues 1 and 3 are resolved against the Appellants.

On issue 2 relating to the award of damages against the Appellants, I have no doubt in my mind that the lower Court gave a dispassionate consideration to all the submissions made by the learned Counsel at the lower Court coupled with the pleadings and I am of the settled view that the heads of damages awarded are fully supported by the evidence on record and the learned trial Judge judicially and judiciously exercised his discretion in awarding the damages complained about by the Appellants.
In the result issue 2 is resolved against the Appellants.

It is hereby adjudged that the Appellants’ appeal is not meritorious and the Appellants’ appeal is hereby dismissed.
The judgment of the High Court of Justice, Federal Capital Territory, Abuja delivered by HON. JUSTICE MARYANNE E. ANENIH on 5th day of June, 2015 is hereby affirmed.
There will be no order as to costs.

ELFRIEDA OLUWAYEMISI WILLIAMS-DAWODU, J.C.A.: I have had a preview of reading in draft, the judgment just delivered by my learned brother, Peter Olabisi Ige, JCA. I agree with the reasoning and conclusion contained therein.

In support, it is necessary to reiterate as clearly stated in the lead judgment that a Plaintiff who seeks a declaration of title to land has a burden to clearly establish such relief and the five (5) methods of proof of title to land as enunciated in the celebrated case of IDUNDUN V. OKUMAGBA 1976 6 – 9 SC 227, followed in ATANDA V. AJANI 1989 3 NWLR PT. 111 511 and KYARI V. ALKALI 2001 FWLR PT. 60 1481 amongst plethora of authorities.

In view of the foregoing as well as the other reasons carefully laid out in the lead judgment, I also find the appeal unmeritorious. It is in consequence hereby dismissed. The judgment of the Federal Capital Territory High Court delivered by Hon. Justice MaryAnne E. Anenihon June 5th 2015 is hereby affirmed.
I make no order as to costs.

DANLAMI ZAMA SENCHI, J.C.A.: I have had the opportunity of reading in draft, the lead judgment of my learned brother, PETER OLABISI IGE, JCA just delivered and I agree with the reasoning and conclusion reached therein that this appeal lacks merit and I dismiss same as well.

Accordingly, the judgment of the High Court of Justice of the Federal Capital Territory Abuja in suit No. FCT/HC/CV/4184/2012 delivered on 5th June, 2015 by MARYANNE E. ANENIH is hereby affirmed.
No award as to cost.

Appearances:

OMOTAYO IBRAHIMFor Appellant(s)

ALEXANDER OKETA, with him, ODE EVANS ADIKWUFor Respondent(s)