CASE TITLE: OSAIGBOVO v. EKHATOR (2024) LPELR-73237(CA)
JUDGMENT DATE: 15TH NOVEMBER, 2024
PRACTICE AREA: LAND LAW
LEAD JUDGMENT: MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM SIRAJO, J.C.A.
SUMMARY OF JUDGMENT:
INTRODUCTION:
This appeal borders on Land Law.
FACTS:
Before the High Court of Edo State, sitting at Benin City (the lower Court), the Respondent, as Claimant, commenced an action against the Appellant, as Defendant, seeking reliefs as contained in his 2nd Further Amended Statement of Claim, as follows:
1. A DECLARATION that the Plaintiff is the owner and the person in effective possession is the appropriate person entitled to apply for and be granted a Statutory Right of Occupancy by the Edo State Government over a piece or parcel of land measuring approximately 4469.118 square meters, more particularly described and delineated in survey plan No. ISO/BD/172/92 and covered by Certificate of Occupancy No. 12646 registered as number 1 at page 1 in volume B182 of the Lands Registry, Benin City.
2. A DECLARATION that the act of Defendant sometime in the year 1995, in entering into Plaintiff’s said parcel of land and erecting a structure on a part thereof measuring 53ft x 135ft without the authority or consent of the Plaintiff is trespassory.
3. AN ORDER of Court commanding the Defendant, his servants, agents, and/or privies to give up possession of the parcel of land first described in relief 2 above, removing whatever structure or structures he has erected thereon, the same having been done in brazen trespassory violation of Plaintiff’s ownership interest in the said land.
4. A perpetual injunction restraining the Defendant, his agents, servants, and/or privies from any other or further act or acts of entry or trespass over the said land.
5. The sum of N5,000,000.00 (Five Million Naira) only, being general, special, and exemplary damages for the acts of trespass carried out by the Defendant on the said parcel of land.
The Appellant, as Defendant, denied the Respondent’s claim and counter-claimed ownership of the disputed parcel of land, perpetual injunction and general and exemplary damages.
At the conclusion of trial, during which both parties called three witnesses and tendered documentary exhibits, the trial Court, in a considered judgment delivered on the 1st day of February, 2013, found for the Respondent, as per his claim, save for damages, which the Court varied and awarded the sum of Three Hundred Thousand Naira (300,000.00) only.
Peeved by the said decision, the Appellant initiated this appeal.
ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION:
The Court considered the following issues:
1. Whether having regard to decided cases on the acquisition of land under Benin Native Law and Custom a person could claim ownership of land before the grant of the land by the Oba of Benin and without evidence of compliance with the mode and procedure of acquiring land under Benin Native Law and Custom.
2. Whether under Benin Native Law and Custom, a person can inherit property without the evidence of burial and family distribution under Benin Native Law and Custom.
DECISION/HELD:
In conclusion, the appeal was dismissed.
RATIOS:
- ACTION- PLEADINGS: Effect of evidence which is not pleaded
- APPEAL- GROUND(S) OF APPEAL: Effect of a ground of appeal from which no issue for determination is formulated
- CUSTOMARY LAW- BENIN CUSTOMARY LAW: Principles governing the acquisition of valid title to land in accordance with Bini Customary law
- CUSTOMARY LAW- BENIN CUSTOMARY LAW: Ownership of land under Benin customary law
- 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- ADMISSIBILITY OF UNREGISTERED REGISTRABLE INSTRUMENT: Position of the law as regards the admissibility of an unregistered registrable instrument
To read the full judgment or similar judgments, subscribe to Prime or Primsol
