Is the Production of Title Documents Alone Enough to Prove Title to Land?

CASE TITLE: REGITEX GLOBAL RESOURCES LTD v. A. A. OIL COMPANY LTD & ORS (2024) LPELR-62124(CA)
JUDGMENT DATE: 25TH APRIL, 2024
PRACTICE AREA: LAND LAW
LEAD JUDGMENT: JOSEPH OLUBUNMI KAYODE OYEWOLE, J.C.A.

SUMMARY OF JUDGMENT:

INTRODUCTION:
This appeal borders on Land Law.

FACTS:
This is an appeal against the judgment of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, delivered on June 27, 2018 by Belgore, J.

The Appellant as Plaintiff approached the trial Court via a writ of summons filed on December 12, 2012, for reliefs that were later amended, seeking a declaration that the Plaintiff is the lawful and equitable holder of the Statutory Right of Occupancy and entitled to the possession of the piece of land known as Plot No. 164 located at Katampe Extension Cadastral Zone B19, covered by the Certificate of Occupancy in the name of Zara I. Abubakar, and other adjoining reliefs.

On being served, only the 2nd Respondent joined issues with the Appellant and also filed a counter-claim wherein it sought a declaration that the Counter-Claimant is the beneficial owner and the person entitled to possession of all the piece of land known as Plot No. 164 within Katampe Extension District Abuja having been allocated with and granted Offer of Terms of Grant/Conveyance, and other adjoining reliefs.

At trial, the Appellant as well as the 2nd Respondent called one witness apiece, while the other Respondents did not file pleadings or call witnesses. After taking final addresses of counsel from the two sides, the learned trial Judge delivered a considered judgment in which he found in favour of the 2nd Respondent and granted its counter-claim.

Dissatisfied, the Appellant invoked the appellate jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal.

ISSUE(S) FOR DETERMINATION:
The Court determined the appeal on the following issues:

1. “Whether the lower Court misconstrued the case as presented by the parties regarding the identity of the land claimed by the Appellant vis-à-vis their pleadings and evidence in relation to the same.”
2. “Whether the lower Court ought to have relied on the unchallenged evidence of the Appellant in granting all its reliefs as claimed.”
3. “Whether the lower Court ought to have dismissed the counter-claim filed by the 2nd Respondent for lack of credible evidence.”

DECISION/HELD:
In conclusion, the appeal was dismissed.

RATIOS:
• EVIDENCE – PROOF OF TITLE TO LAND – Ways of proving title/ownership of land/house
• LAND LAW – TITLE TO LAND – Whether the production of title documents alone is enough to prove title to land
• LAND LAW – DOCUMENT OF TITLE – Questions the Court must ask where a party relies on document(s) of title to establish his title to land
• PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – CONSISTENCY IN PRESENTATION OF A CASE – Whether a party can maintain on appeal, a case different from that which was presented at the lower Court
• LAND LAW – CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY – Whether certificate of occupancy is conclusive evidence of title
• EVIDENCE – PUBLIC DOCUMENT – Whether a certified true copy of a public document is presumed genuine until the contrary is proved

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