Purpose of a Power of Attorney

CASE TITLE: GIDADO v. LAWAN (2024) LPELR-62724(CA)
JUDGMENT DATE: 6TH AUGUST, 2024
PRACTICE AREA: LAND LAW
LEAD JUDGMENT: ITA GEORGE MBABA, J.C.A.

SUMMARY OF JUDGMENT:

INTRODUCTION:

This appeal borders on Power of Attorney on Land.

FACTS:

This is an appeal against the judgment of the Adamawa State High Court delivered on June 4, 2023, by Hon. Justice F. D. Nzarga.

Appellant, as Plaintiff states that he donated power of attorney to the PW2 (Ibrahim Bakari) over his (Appellant’s) vast land, inclusive of the land in dispute, which was the subject matter in an earlier Suit No. CV/40/98, which is the distribution of the estate of his late father, was determined according to Islamic Law by the Yola Area Court. The appellant did not specify the location of the land, although the devolution of title thereof was not in dispute, going by the judgment of the Area Court in Suit No. CV/40/98, which had distributed Appellant’s father’s Estate, according to Islamic Law.

​The appellant admitted donating a power of attorney, over the land to the PW2 but denied authorizing him (PW2) to sell the land, while at the same time, admitting that the PW2 sold many portions of his said land to different persons, he (Appellant) could not even account for! The appellant did not, however, produce the said power of attorney at the trial.

The PW2 admitted selling the land of the appellant on behalf of the Appellant to several people, and the evidence of the DW2 further explained how the sale was done to the Respondent, corroborating the evidence of PW2.

The Respondent, as Defendant, filed a defence and denied the claim, but in his evidence in chief, admitted and affirmed the Appellant’s original title, but asserted that the disputed land was sold to one, Mohammed Abdulhameed (Hammadu) by Ibrahim Bakari (PW2), though the latter vehemently denied selling the disputed land to anybody, and worst still, to Respondent.

Appellant therefore said that the subsequent sale agreement between Mohammed Abdulhameed and Bashir El-wan was in total contradiction with the pleadings of the Respondents, particularly regarding the location, size, and mode of the alleged acquisition of the disputed land.

After hearing the case and considering the evidence and addresses of Counsel, the learned trial Judge dismissed the claim of the plaintiff, saying that he failed to discharge the burden of proof, that the land in dispute had not been sold by his lawful attorney, and that the land was different from the land Defendant was in possession of as the land in dispute fell within the land covered by the Defendant’s Customary Certificate contrary to the pleading of the Plaintiff.

Dissatisfied with this decision, the Appellant appealed against same to the Court of Appeal.

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION:

The Court formulated the following issues for the determination of this appeal:

(1) Whether the Appellant, in fact, sold the land in dispute, through the PW2 (Ibrahim Bakari), whom the Appellant granted power of attorney over his large expanse of land, inclusive of the land in dispute, to the Respondent’s vendor, Mohammed Abdulhameed, who passed title to the Respondent, as held by the lower Court?

(2) Whether the trial Judge was right to dismiss Appellant’s claim for lacking in merit?

DECISION/HELD:

In conclusion, the Court dismissed the appeal.

RATIOS:

• APPEAL- UNAPPEALED FINDING(S)/DECISION(S): Effect of failure to appeal against the finding(s) of a Court
• CONVEYANCY LAW- POWER OF ATTORNEY: Extent and purpose of a power of attorney
• LAND LAW- CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY: What is the legal status of a Certificate of Occupancy in proof of title to land

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