WHETHER A COUNTER CLAIMANT IN AN ACTION FOR DECLARATION OF TITLE TO LAND CAN DISPUTE THE IDENTITY OF LAND

CASE TITLE: MUSA v. BAPPAH & ORS (2021) LPELR-55223(CA)

JUDGMENT DATE: 22ND JULY, 2021

PRACTICE AREA: LAND LAW

LEAD JUDGMENT: JUMMAI HANNATU SANKEY, J.C.A.

SUMMARY OF JUDGMENT:

INTRODUCTION

This appeal borders on Declaration of Title to Land.

FACTS

This Appeal is against the Judgment of the High Court of Bauchi delivered on 21st April, 2020, by HON JUSTICE S.I. Zadawa.

The 1st Respondent, as Plaintiff before the trial Court, claimed against the Appellant, as 1st Defendant, for declaration of title, trespass, injunction and general damages. He claimed that his late father was allocated a plot of land consisting of 2000 square meters and covered by a Right of Occupancy No. BA/4100 and that it was unjustifiably canceled by the 2nd Respondent who proceeded to grant title over the same piece of land to the Appellant’s grandfather. He, therefore, filed the action against the Appellant, 2nd and 3rd Respondents (Ministry of Lands and Housing Bauchi State and the Attorney General Bauchi State respectively).

By his Amended Statement of defense and Counter-claim, the Appellant denied the claim and also counter-claimed against the 1st Respondent. He claimed that he is the owner in possession of the land in dispute consisting of 3,263.80 meters. He contended that the land was initially allocated to his grandfather, Mr. Poloma Yarda, and it is covered by a Certificate of Occupancy No. BA/5013 which was subsequently assigned to his mother in 1986 vide a Deed of Assignment, duly registered.

In exercising acts of ownership and possession over the land, he developed it by building a four-course brick fence around the land.

In its considered judgment, the trial court entered judgment essentially in favor of the 1st Respondent but also awarded the Appellant a portion of the land which he counter-claimed for.

Dissatisfied with this decision, the Appellant has approached the Court of Appeal.

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION

The appeal was determined upon consideration of the following issues:

1) Whether the trial Court was right when it entered Judgement in favor of the 1st Respondent and granted him the declaratory reliefs sought in his claim.

2) Whether the trial Court was right when it made Orders granting reliefs not claimed by either of the parties in this suit.

DECISION/HELD

In the final analysis, the Court of Appeal held that the appeal lacked merit and it was dismissed.

RATIOS:

• LAND LAW – DECLARATION OF TITLE TO LAND: Whether a declaration of title can be made without recourse to a survey plan
• LAND LAW – IDENTITY OF LAND: Whether a counter claimant in an action for declaration of title to land can dispute the identity of land
• LAND LAW – POSSESSION OF LAND: Who does the law ascribe possession to where two parties claim to be in possession of a land
• LAND LAW – DECLARATION OF TITLE TO LAND: Whether the Court can make a declaration of title over a smaller portion of land than that claimed