CASE TITLE: GAJIBO v. MOHAMMED & ANOR (2025) LPELR-81540(CA)
JUDGMENT DATE: 2ND JULY, 2025
PRACTICE AREA: EVIDENCE
LEAD JUDGMENT: UGOCHUKWU ANTHONY OGAKWU, J.C.A.
SUMMARY OF JUDGMENT:
INTRODUCTION:
This appeal borders on Civil Procedure.
FACTS:
This appeal is against the judgment of the High Court of Borno State.
The disceptation in this matter is the ownership of land being, lying and situated along Baga Road, Timber Market Area, Maiduguri, Borno State. The Appellant was the Plaintiff before the High Court of Borno State. The Appellant claimed the following reliefs against the Respondents, jointly and severally:
“(a) A declaration that the plaintiff has a right of possession and occupation over that piece of farmland measuring 200 by 100 ft, being, lying and situated along Baga Road at the northern end of the Timber Market, Maiduguri.
(b) A declaration that the Defendants’ adverse claim of title to the said farmland is illegal, wrongful, null and void.
(c) An order of perpetual injunction restraining the Defendants whether by themselves, servants, agents, privies or howsoever, from further trespassing into, erecting any form of structure on, farming on or alienating in any way whatsoever the farmland subject matter of the suit.
(d) The cost of the suit.”
The parties filed and exchanged pleadings, and issues having been joined on the pleadings, the matter went to trial. Testimonial and documentary evidence were adduced. In its judgment, the trial Court held that the Appellant’s case was without merit, and it accordingly dismissed the same.
The Appellant was dissatisfied with the decision of the trial Court, and he appealed against the same.
ISSUE(S) FOR DETERMINATION:
The Court adopted the issues for determination formulated by the parties.
The Appellant formulated a sole issue for determination:
“Whether or not considering the decision of the trial Court the learned trial [sic] properly [sic] and ascribe probative value to the oral and documentary evidence before the Court arriving at its decision.”
On their part, the Respondents formulated two issues for determination, namely:
“i. Whether the trial High Court properly evaluates [sic] and considered all the issues and evidence before it in arriving at its decision.
ii. Whether the case of the Appellant was not caught by the doctrine of Lis Pendens and Res Judicata.”
DECISION/HELD:
In conclusion, the Court dismissed the Appeal.
RATIOS:
- EVIDENCE- BURDEN OF PROOF/ONUS OF PROOF: Whether a party must rely on the strength of his case and not the weakness of the case of a defendant
- EVIDENCE- ESTOPPEL PER REM JUDICATAM/RES JUDICATA: Principles and types/kinds of estoppel per res judicata
- EVIDENCE- ESTOPPEL PER REM JUDICATAM/RES JUDICATA: Conditions for a successful plea of estoppel per rem judicatam
- EVIDENCE- ESTOPPEL PER REM JUDICATAM/RES JUDICATA: Classes of privies in relation to the doctrine of res judicata
- EVIDENCE- PRESUMPTION OF CORRECTNESS: Presumption of correctness in favour of judgment of Court; Duty on a party contending otherwise
- LAND LAW- ROOT OF TITLE: Duty of a party to prove root of title in a claim for declaration of title to land; effect of failure
To read the full judgment or similar judgments, subscribe to Prime or Primsol
