CASE TITLE: MOHAMMED v. SHEM & ORS (2024) LPELR-63047(CA)
JUDGMENT DATE: 12TH NOVEMBER, 2024
PRACTICE AREA: LAND LAW
LEAD JUDGMENT: OLABODE ABIMBOLA ADEGBEHINGBE, J.C.A.
SUMMARY OF JUDGMENT:
INTRODUCTION:
This appeal borders on land law.
FACTS:
The parties’ dispute concerns a parcel of land. The first respondent claimed founding and ownership of the land and complained that the four defendants before the trial Court trespassed thereon without his authority.
The 1st respondent had averred that the disputed land was originally virgin, heavily forested land, which he founded by deforestation and conversion of the land to farmland many years ago. After he had founded the land by deforestation, he planted Eucalyptus trees [popularly called “Zaiti”] around the land to mark the boundaries of the land while farming on the land. He further pointed out that when he went on a routine inspection of the land a few years ago, he met one Awalu Boss cutting down some of the Eucalyptus trees that he planted on the boundaries of the land and when he challenged him as to why he was cutting down the trees, the said Awalu Boss informed him that he did not know that the land belonged to him, adding that the land belonged to one Alhaji Ahmadu Ngoshe, the 2nd defendant/appellant.
The defendants relied on the purchase of the land from the children of one late Dauda Abubakar, namely Samuel Dauda and Mama Elizabeth, later to Alha. Shuaibu Kada, who in turn sold it to Vemgo Nig. Ltd. However, none of those alive was called to testify to that effect.
The trial Court delivered its judgment in favour of the plaintiffs/appellants. Dissatisfied with the judgment of the trial Court, the appellant appealed against the same.
ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION:
The Court determined the appeal on the following issues:
1. “Was the High Court right in granting a declaration, injunction and awarding damages against the Appellants in the face of evidence that the Appellants do not claim title to the land in dispute and based on their entry upon the land to the title of some other person who was not made party to the suit?”
2. “Whether the trial Court was right to hold that the Plaintiff has proved his claim to declaration of title, injunction and trespass based on traditional evidence having regards to the state of pleadings and evidence led at the trial?”
DECISION/HELD:
In conclusion, the Court dismissed the appeal.
RATIOS:
- ACTION- MISJOINDER/NON-JOINDER OF PARTY(IES): Whether a cause or matter can be defeated by reason of non-joinder or misjoinder of parties
- ACTION- JOINDER OF PARTY(IES): Whether the right to apply to join additional parties in a civil proceeding is limited to the Plaintiff
- APPEAL- NATURE OF APPEAL: Principles of law in relation to an appeal
- EVIDENCE- TRADITIONAL EVIDENCE/HISTORY: Nature of traditional evidence
- EVIDENCE- PROOF OF TITLE TO LAND: Ways of proving title/ownership of land/house
- EVIDENCE- PRESUMPTION OF OWNERSHIP: Presumption of ownership on a person in possession of land; what a person asserting the contrary must prove
- EVIDENCE- BURDEN OF PROOF/ONUS OF PROOF: Onus of proof on a plaintiff to prove the origin of the title of his vendor/grantor in a land matter where the title of the vendor/grantor is denied
- JUDGMENT AND ORDER- ERROR/MISTAKE IN JUDGMENT: Whether every error/mistake in a judgment will result in a judgment being set aside; circumstance where error/mistake in a judgment will result in a judgment being set aside
- LAND LAW- TRESPASS TO LAND: Position of the law as regards the defence of jus tertii
- LAND LAW- TRESPASS TO LAND: Instance of trespass
- LAND LAW- POSSESSION OF LAND: Acts that amount to possession of land
To read the full judgment or similar judgments, subscribe to Prime or Primsol
