Effect of Contradictory Evidence of Traditional History of Ownership of Land

CASE TITLE: SHITTU v. ADEYANJU & ORS (2024) LPELR-62786(CA)
JUDGMENT DATE: 5TH AUGUST, 2024
PRACTICE AREA: LAND LAW
LEAD JUDGMENT: PETER CHUDI OBIORAH, J.C.A.

SUMMARY OF JUDGMENT:

INTRODUCTION:

This appeal borders on the Declaration of Title to Land.

FACTS:

This is an appeal against the judgment of the High Court of Ogun State delivered on the 9th day of February, 2017.

The brief facts of the case are that the 1st and 2nd Respondents are brothers. The 1st Respondent is based in the United Kingdom and through the 2nd Respondent bought the land in dispute from the 3rd Respondent who claimed that he acquired the land from the Asero Chieftaincy family in 1992. It is the case of the 1st and 2nd Respondents that they took possession of the land and sometime later the Appellant came on the land and chased away the workers of the 1st and 2nd Respondents claiming that the land belongs to him. This situation made the 1st and 2nd Respondents, as claimants, to commence an action against the 3rd Respondent (their vendor) and the Appellant, as defendants, whereby they sought for the following reliefs, amongst others:

a) A declaration that the 1st Claimant is the person entitled to the statutory right of occupancy in respect of all that parcel of land measuring 664.668 square meters covered by Survey Plan No. KDA1/OG/52/92 dated 17/2/92 lying and being at 161, Ojodu Akute Road, Alausa-Adiyan, Akute, Ogun State.

b) An injunction restraining the 2nd and 3rd Defendants whether by themselves, their servants, agents and or representatives, from laying claim of ownership to all that parcel of land measuring 664.668 square meters covered by Survey Plan No. KDA1/OG/52/92 dated 17/2/92 lying and being at 161, Ojodu Akute Road, Alausa-Adiyan, Akute, Ogun State.

c) An injunction restraining the 2nd and 3rd Defendants whether by themselves, servants, agents and/or representative from interfering in any manner whatsoever with the claimant’s use and occupation of the land in dispute.

d) The sum of N2,000,000.00 (Two million Naira) being general and special damages.

The action was originally against three defendants but the 3rd defendant was reported to have died during the litigation and he was withdrawn from the suit. The 1st defendant, now the 3rd Respondent, did not file any defence to the suit. The Appellant filed his defence to the suit and entered a counter claim in the following terms:

a) A Declaration that the Counter-claimant has a customary right of occupancy and is entitled to a statutory right of occupancy in the said parcel of land situate, lying and being at No. 161, Ojodu, Akute Road, Alausa-Adiyan, Akute, Ogun State of Nigeria.

b) An order that the counterclaimant be indemnified for the cost of defending this action to the tune of N500,000.00 only.

At the trial, the 2nd Respondent gave evidence, while the Appellant also gave evidence. Thereafter, the trial Court delivered its judgment in favour of the 1st and 2nd Respondents awarding them the statutory right of occupancy over the land in dispute. The Appellant was dissatisfied with the decision of the trial Court and initiated this appeal by a notice of appeal filed on 8/5/2017.

ISSUE(S) FOR DETERMINATION:

The appeal was determined on the following issue viz:

“Who between the Appellant and the 1st and 2nd Respondents established on credible evidence his entitlement to a declaration of title over the land in dispute.”

DECISION/HELD:

On the whole, the appeal was dismissed.

RATIOS:

• ACTION- PLEADINGS- Effect of evidence which is not pleaded
• APPEAL- REPLY BRIEF- Whether a reply brief is meant to improve on the quality of the argument in the Appellant brief
• EVIDENCE- PROOF OF TITLE TO LAND- Ways of proving title/ownership of land; whether proof of any one of the methods by credible evidence would be sufficient to ground an action for declaration of title to land
• EVIDENCE- CROSS-EXAMINATION- Effect of failure of an adversary to cross-examine a witness
• EVIDENCE- EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE: Whether the procedure/method for evaluation of evidence is at the discretion of the trial Court and how such discretion is to be exercised; whether an appellate Court will interfere merely because it would have used a different method
• EVIDENCE- TRADITIONAL EVIDENCE/HISTORY: Effect of contradictory evidence of traditional history of ownership of land
• EVIDENCE- PROOF OF TITLE TO LAND- Instance(s) where a party will be held to have proven his title to land
• LAND LAW- DECLARATION OF TITLE TO LAND- Whether a plaintiff seeking declaration of title to land must rely on the strength of his case and not on the weakness of the defence

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