Effect of a Written Statement on Oath Not Signed and Sworn to Before a Commissioner for Oaths

CASE TITLE: BUKAR v. GOV OF BORNO STATE & ANOR (2025) LPELR-80864(CA)
JUDGMENT DATE: 9TH APRIL, 2025
PRACTICE AREA: LAND LAW
LEAD JUDGMENT: UGOCHUKWU ANTHONY OGAKWU, J.C.A.

INTRODUCTION:

This appeal borders on Land Law.

FACTS:

This appeal is against the decision of the High Court of Borno State.

The Appellant was the Claimant in an action before the High Court of Borno State. The Appellant by his Amended Statement of Claim, claimed the following reliefs against the Respondents who were the Defendants at the trial Court:

“a. A Declaration that the claimant is both the legal, equitable, and lawful owner of all that parcel of farmland contained in file No. KLG/WKS/LAND/719/Vol. covered by Customary Certificate of Occupancy No. 000338 dated 20th day of May, 1998, in Volume 1 page of Register bearing the name of Alhaji Mai Modu Kukanbori, situated at New Site Magaranti Konduga Local Government Area of Borno State, measuring 250 ft. x 250ft.

b. A Declaration that the 1st and 2nd defendants cannot take over 2000 sqm out of the farmland of the claimant described above without recourse to due process of law.

c. A Declaration that the defendants are trespassers over the 2000 sqm of the claimant’s farmland described above.

​d. An order of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants whether by themselves, their agencies, parastatals, or any person or authority whatsoever claiming through the defendants from taking over 2000 sqm or any part thereof of the farmland of the claimant without recourse to the procedure laid down by law.

e. N999,999.99 as damages for trespass.

f. Cost of this suit.”

The parties filed and exchanged pleadings, and issues having been joined on the pleadings, the matter proceeded to a full-dress hearing where testimonial and documentary evidence was adduced by the parties. In its judgment, the trial Court held that the Appellant failed to discharge the burden of proof on him. It accordingly dismissed the Appellant’s claim for lack of merit.

Dissatisfied, the appellant appealed.

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION:

The Court adopted the issues formulated by Appellant, viz:

“1. Whether the trial Court was right when it admitted and relied on the witness statement on oath of DW1, holding that the failure to comply with the requirement of signing a witness statement on oath before an authorized person is a mere irregularity/technicality that cannot warrant its being expunged.

2. Whether Exhibit MJ4 was rightly admitted in evidence at the trial Court despite being tendered by a witness whose witness statement on Oath was itself inadmissible for non-compliance with the requirement of the law regarding its deposition.

3. Whether the trial Court rightly held that there was a valid acquisition and allocation of land, despite the evidence of non-payment of compensation to the subsisting interest holders at the point of the purported acquisition and allocation by the 1st and 2nd Respondents.

4. Whether the evidence adduced by the Appellant/Claimant at the trial Court was not sufficient to trace and establish the title of the Appellant deriving from the title of his vendor over the land in dispute.

5. Whether the trial judge was not in error when he raised the issue of locus standi and payment of compensation, when the claim of the Appellant/Claimant was only one of declaration of Title to Land and Reliefs against Trespass.

6. Whether the learned trial judge was right when he failed to consider and make a pronouncement on the Appellant’s claim of damages for trespass and injunction against the Defendants throughout the judgment of the trial Court.

7. Whether the findings of the trial Court were supported by the evidence adduced at the trial.”

DECISION/HELD:

In conclusion, the Court dismissed the appeal.

RATIOS:

• EVIDENCE – WRITTEN STATEMENT ON OATH: Effect of a written statement on oath not signed and sworn to before a Commissioner for Oaths
• EVIDENCE – BURDEN OF PROOF/ONUS OF PROOF: Onus on a plaintiff in an action for declaration of title to land to succeed on the strength of his own case and not the weakness of the case of the defence; whether the onus shifts
• LAND LAW – IDENTITY OF LAND: Who has the duty to establish identity of land
• LAND LAW – DOCUMENT OF TITLE: Whether mere production of document of title is sufficient in a claim for declaration of title to land; what the Court must satisfy itself with before the production of documents of title is admitted as sufficient proof of ownership
• LAND LAW – ACQUISITION OF LAND: Requirements for compulsory acquisition of land
• LAND LAW – TRESPASS TO LAND: Whether a Plaintiff can sustain an action in trespass when claim for declaration of title fails

To read the full judgment or similar judgments, subscribe to Prime or Primsol