EFFECT OF FAILURE TO SERVE NOTICE OF REVOCATION OF RIGHT OF OCCUPANCY

HEADING: EFFECT OF FAILURE TO SERVE NOTICE OF REVOCATION OF RIGHT OF OCCUPANCY

CASE TITLE: ATUME v. BAKODO (2020) LPELR-49162(CA)

 JUDGMENT DATE: 10^TH JANUARY, 2020

 PRACTICE AREA: LAND LAW

LEAD JUDGE: ABDULLAHI MAHMUD BAYERO, J.C.A.

SUMMARY OF JUDGMENT:

INTRODUCTION

This appeal borders on the declaration of title to land.

FACTS

This Appeal germinated from the judgment of the Adamawa State High Court delivered on 17th October 2019 by Nathan Musa J.

By an amended statement of claim, the Respondent/Plaintiff sought for the following reliefs before the High Court:

1) A declaration that by virtue of the Certificate of Occupancy No. GS/13993 dated 12th December 2006, the Plaintiff is entitled to the right of use and occupation of all that parcel of land lying, being and situate at Namtari District, Yola South Local Government Area of Adamawa State.

2) N500,000 (Five Hundred Thousand Naira) only as general damages against the Defendant for trespass.

3) An Order of perpetual injunction restraining the Defendant, his servants, agents and/or privies from further fomenting acts of trespass on the said parcel of land in any manner whatsoever.

To prove his case, the Respondent/Plaintiff gave evidence as PW1 and called one more witness, tendered Exhibit A (Grant of Right of Occupancy), Exhibit B (Certificate of Occupancy) and Exhibit C (A Receipt). The Appellant/Defendant called two witnesses (DW1 and DW2), tendered Exhibit D (A purchase receipt), E (Sales Agreement), F (Grant of Right of occupancy), G (Document from the Ministry of Land showing the return of the land to Alhaji Saidu Sale), H (Grant of Right of Occupancy) and J (A site plan).

After due consideration of the case of the parties, the High Court entered judgment for the Respondent/Plaintiff. Dissatisfied, the Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal.

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION

The Court determined the appeal on the following issues:

1) Whether the learned Trial Court Judge was right when he held that the Plaintiff has proved all his claims before the Court on the preponderance of evidence.

2) Whether the learned Trial Court Judge was right when he granted reliefs not sought.

3) Whether the learned Trial Court Judge was right when he entered judgment for the Plaintiff on proceedings conducted under extant rules

DECISION/HELD

In conclusion, the Court dismissed the appeal.

RATIOS:

• EVIDENCE- BURDEN OF PROOF/ONUS OF PROOF: Whether a plaintiff can rely on the weakness in the case of a defendant to prove his own case in an action for declaration of title
• LAND LAW- REVOCATION OF RIGHT OF OCCUPANCY: Effect of failure to serve notice of revocation of right of occupancy
• PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE- RULES OF COURT/STATUTORY PROVISION: Effect of non-compliance with rules of Court