CASE TITLE: TURAKI v. NASARAWA (2025) LPELR-82558(CA)
JUDGMENT DATE: 30TH OCTOBER, 2025
PRACTICE AREA: LAND LAW
LEAD JUDGMENT: ABIODUN AZEEM AKINYEMI, J.C.A.
SUMMARY OF JUDGMENT:
INTRODUCTION:
This appeal borders on Land Law.
FACTS:
This appeal is against the judgment of the High Court of Bauchi State holden at Bauchi, delivered by Kunaza N. Hamidu J on the 26th of March 2021.
The land in dispute is situated at Wunti Dada Village in the Bauchi Local Government Area of Bauchi State. The appellant claimed to have purchased it in 2010 from one Isah Jibrin, who inherited it from his late father, Jibrin Isah. He relied on an agreement of sale between him and his vendor and claimed to have had the land till 2016, when the respondent entered it without his consent, causing him to institute this suit at the lower Court. On the other hand, the respondent claimed to have bought the land in two different parcels from two different vendors, namely, 1.6 hectares from one Malam London Gwallaga Bauchi in 1987 and 1 hectare from one Lawal Yerima Shagari in 1995. He claimed that the documents evidencing the transactions were burnt in a fire in 2013. He subsequently applied to the government for the conversion of his customary right to a statutory right of occupancy.
During the trial, Isah Jibrin testified as a witness. For the appellant, confirming that after his father’s death his land was shared into two parts between him and his brother Ahmed Jibrin (now deceased), and that the portion he sold to the appellant was his inherited share. The respondent called one of his alleged two vendors, Lawal Yerima Shagari, as a witness. He said his other vendor, Mallam Ladan Gwallaga Bauchi, was dead. Although in his pleading, he denied that the Jibrin family (that is, the family of Isah Jibrin, the appellant’s vendor) owned the land in dispute, under cross-examination, both he and his vendor, Lawal Yerima Shagari, admitted that the land in dispute originally belonged to the Jibrin family. Lawal Yerima Shagari said he purchased the land from Jibrin and that the Jibrin he was referring to was related to Isah Jibrin, appellant’s vendor. However, he could not provide any evidence of a transfer of the land to him from the said Jubrin before he transferred the same to the respondent. The learned trial Judge held that the appellant failed to prove his claim and therefore dismissed it. On the other hand, he held that the respondent proved his counterclaim and granted him judgment.
Dissatisfied with the judgment, the appellant filed the instant appeal.
ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION:
The Court determined the appeal on these issues:
1. Whether the trial Court was right to raise an issue suo motu and resolve the same by expunging Exhibits “A and A1” from the record without affording the parties the opportunity to address the Court on the issue.
2. Whether, in consideration of the case, the Appellant’s statement of claim, the evidence of his witnesses, the exhibits tendered and the Respondent’s statement of defence, the evidence of his witnesses and the exhibits tendered, the appellant has proved his claim to be entitled to the judgment of this Hon. Court.
3. Whether the Respondent has proved his counterclaim before the trial court to be entitled to the grant of the reliefs sought before the trial Court.
DECISION/HELD:
In the final analysis, the appeal was dismissed.
RATIOS:
- EVIDENCE- WRONGFUL ADMISSION/REJECTION OF EVIDENCE: Whether Court can expunge a wrongly admitted inadmissible evidence
- EVIDENCE- DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE: Whether a co-maker of a document can tender it in evidence
- EVIDENCE- ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE: Whether a document not written in English Language is admissible; condition for admissibility of same
- LAND LAW- CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY: Whether certificate of occupancy is conclusive evidence of title
- LAND LAW- COMPETING INTERESTS IN LAND: What is the position of law where there are competing interests by parties claiming from a common grantor
- LAND LAW- CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY: Effect of an invalid certificate of occupancy
- LAND LAW- ROOT OF TITLE: Effect of failure to prove a root of title
To read the full judgment or similar judgments, subscribe to Prime or Primsol
