GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF THE LAW RELATING TO CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY

CASE TITLE: GIWA v. ANZAKU (2019) LPELR-46880 (CA)

JUDGMENT DATE: 6^TH MARCH, 2019

PRACTICE AREA: LAND LAW.

LEAD JUDGMENT: JOSEPH EYO EKANEM, J.C.A.

 SUMMARY OF JUDGMENT:

INTRODUCTION

This appeal borders on Land Law.

FACTS

This appeal is against the judgment of the High Court of Nasarawa State holden at Keffi delivered on 14/12/2012 by Aboki, J.

​The respondent claimed to have bought the land in dispute from one Alhaji Musa Karofi in 1969 upon payment of Ten Shillings and one cock. He took possession, farmed and built a house thereon in 1972. The respondent pleaded that the Plateau State Government in 1982 decided to acquire the area for development. The whole area was surveyed and plotted out and it was decided that those already living in the plotted parcels be allocated such plots upon fulfilment of necessary conditions. Respondent’s case was that the portion he lived on since 1972 fell within an area of two plots measuring 400 ft by 400 ft and was known as plot 391. The same was allocated to him.

Out of the land, he gave a portion measuring 50 ft by 50 ft to one Sunday Chinas who built (a house) on it. In 1995, he sold a portion of the same land measuring 100 ft by 50 ft to the appellant for the sum of N2,500. The appellant contended that he was informed by the Ministry for Lands, Survey and Town Planning of the superior title of one Alhaji Tijani Babai on the land based on Right of Occupancy No. PL 2794 dated 7/2/1991. The Ministry demolished appellant’s building construction on the land. He (appellant) paid N40,000.00 to Alhaji Tijani Babai for the land. The appellant built (again) on the land. The appellant demanded for the refund of his money from the respondent. The respondent told him that he would do so any time he moved out of the plot. The respondent averred that the defendant entered a part of the plot he did not sell to him and destroyed 6 stands of palm trees and also packed away 4, 517 mud blocks belonging to him.

Consequent upon the foregoing, the respondent sued the appellant at the High Court for some declaratory reliefs in Land. The appellant filed a statement of defense denying respondent’s claim and incorporated an apparent counter – claim, claiming ownership of the land and general damages. After hearing evidence from both sides and taking addresses, the High Court granted the claims of the respondent and held that appellant had no counter – claim.

Dissatisfied, the Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal.

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION

The Court determined the appeal on following issues:

(1) Whether the Respondent as plaintiff proved his title to the land in dispute as to entitle him to Judgment.

(2) What is the effect of the Government acquiring all the interest in a piece of land and then granting a Right of Occupancy over same to another person.

(3) Whether the Respondent proved his entitlement to damages as awarded by the Court.

DECISION/HELD

In conclusion, the Court dismissed the appeal.

RATIOS:

• LAND LAW- RIGHT OF OCCUPANCY: Effect of a later grant of right of occupancy over an earlier right of occupancy
• LAND LAW- EQUITABLE INTEREST IN LAND: Whether part or full payment of purchase price coupled with possession of land entitles a buyer to an equitable interest in property
• EVIDENCE- VISIT TO THE LOCUS IN QUO: Purpose of a visit or inspection of the locus in quo
• LAND LAW- IDENTITY OF LAND: Instance when the identity of land will not be in issue