CASE TITLE: NAYABA & ANOR v. ASEMOTA (2024) LPELR-63039(CA)
JUDGMENT DATE: 15TH NOVEMBER, 2024
PRACTICE AREA: EVIDENCE
LEAD JUDGMENT: MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM SIRAJO, J.C.A.
SUMMARY OF JUDGMENT:
INTRODUCTION:
This appeal borders on land law.
FACTS:
This appeal interrogates the correctness of the judgment of the High Court of Justice, Edo State, sitting at Benin City, delivered on the 26th day of March, 2018 (Coram: Edigin, J).
The bone of contention between the parties is a piece of land measuring 350ft by 750ft at Ogiso Quarters, former Ward 10/E Benin City. Both parties claimed that they derive title from the Oba of Benin. While the Claimant is basing his claim of title to the land in dispute on one Mr. Osadolor who sold the land to his father after deriving title from the Oba of Benin, the 2nd Appellant who transferred title of the land to the 1st Appellant is claiming that he bought the land from the Uhunwundumwun Community, who were granted that piece of land by Oba Akenzu II, the Oba of Benin. The 1st Appellant counterclaimed against the Claimant.
The learned trial Judge in his judgment delivered on 26/3/2018, held that neither the Claimant nor the Defendants were able to prove how they acquired root of title to the land, hence this appeal.
ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION:
The Court considered:
1. Whether the learned trial Judge was right to rely on evidence of long and exclusive possession to grant the reliefs the Respondent sought.
2. Whether the 2nd Appellant has the requisite authority or power to transfer the land in dispute to purchaser in Exhibit D1.
3. Whether the 1st Appellant had in fact and in law defended the suit at the lower Court.
DECISION/HELD:
In conclusion, the appeal was allowed in part.
RATIOS:
- APPEAL- GROUND(S) OF APPEAL: Effect of a ground of appeal from which no issue for determination is formulated
- APPEAL- REPLY BRIEF: Essence of a reply brief; whether a reply is meant to extend/improve the scope of argument/submission in the brief of the appellant
- EVIDENCE- PROOF OF TITLE TO LAND: Ways of proving title to land and whether the ways are independent of each other; whether a claimant/plaintiff must rely on the strength of his case and not on the weakness of the defence
- EVIDENCE- DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE: Position of the law where a Court of law is faced with disputed signature
- EVIDENCE- TRADITIONAL EVIDENCE/HISTORY: Duty of a party relying on traditional history
- EVIDENCE- DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE: Whether documentary evidence speaks for itself
- LAND LAW- POSSESSION OF LAND: Whether long possession confers title on a party
- LAND LAW- ROOT OF TITLE: Effect of failure of a claimant to prove root of title and whether there is need for court to consider acts of possession where a party fails to prove his root of title
To read the full judgment or similar judgments, subscribe to Prime or Primsol
