Limitation Period for Bringing an Action for Recovery of Land

CASE TITLE:  MAISAMARI & ORS v. GIWA (2024) LPELR-62137(CA)

JUDGMENT DATE: 24TH APRIL, 2024

PRACTICE AREA: LIMITATION LAW

LEAD JUDGMENT: MOHAMMED DANJUMA, J.C.A.

SUMMARY OF JUDGMENT:

INTRODUCTION:

This appeal borders on Declaration of Title to Land.

FACTS:

This is an appeal against the judgment of the Gombe State High Court of Justice delivered on October 4, 2022, in Appeal No. GM/14A/2020

The claim of the Respondent as Plaintiff before the trial Upper Area Court, Bambam, was for declaration of title to portions of land which he allegedly purchased in 1979 from one Yolibwa and has been in possession for fourty (40) years until sometime in 2019, when the Appellants, then Defendants at the trial Court, began to lay claim over the land in dispute as being communal land.

​The Respondent was Plaintiff before the trial Court presented 3 witnesses, while the Appellants as Defendants presented seven (7) witnesses, all of who confirmed that there was a sale of land to the Respondent by the said Yolibwa, only disputing the year of the sale and the lack of authority by the Respondent’s vendor to carry out the sale.

At the conclusion of the hearing, judgment was entered in favour of the Respondent as Plaintiff. The Appellants being dissatisfied with the decision of the trial Upper Area Court, Bambam, appealed to the Gombe State High Court of Justice sitting on appeals which Court confirmed the judgment of the trial Court, hence the instant appeal to this Court.

ISSUE(S) FOR DETERMINATION:

The Court determined the appeal on the following issues, viz:

1. “Whether, considering the communal land holding of the land in dispute and particularly the evidence of Audu Maisamari, the 7th defence witness, the purported sale of the farmland to the respondent is not, ab-initio, void?”

2. “Whether the lower Court was wrong in law to have applied the limitation law in this matter that had to do with customary land holding?”

3. “Whether or not the lower Court was right in holding that the trial Court properly evaluated the evidence when the respondent failed to prove the root of his title and that of his vendor?”

DECISION/HELD:

In the final analysis, the Court dismissed the appeal.

RATIOS:

• CUSTOMARY LAW – CUSTOMARY SALE OF LAND – Requirements for a valid sale of land under Native law and custom
• 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
• LIMITATION LAW – LIMITATION LAW – Purpose of a limitation law
• APPEAL – GROUND(S) OF APPEAL – Whether ground(s) of appeal and/or issue(s) for determination can be against an obiter dictum
• LIMITATION LAW – LIMITATION PERIOD – Limitation period for bringing an action for recovery of land
• APPEAL – INTERFERENCE WITH EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE – Duty of trial court to evaluate evidence and ascribe probative value to same; when an Appellate Court will not interfere
• LAND LAW – TITLE TO LAND – Whether a plaintiff who has proved title to land needs to prove the title of his vendor

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