Whether a Person who has Better Title Over Land, Though Not in Physical Possession, Will be Deemed to be the Person in Possession of the Land

CASE TITLE: ORU v. OLERUA & ANOR (2025) LPELR- 82648(CA)

JUDGMENT DATE: 11TH DECEMBER, 2025

PRACTICE AREA: EVIDENCE

LEAD JUDGMENT: MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM SIRAJO, J.C.A.

SUMMARY OF JUDGMENT:

INTRODUCTION:

This appeal borders on declaration of title to land.

FACTS:

This appeal arises from the judgment of the Bayelsa State High Court, Ogbia Division, delivered on 3 April 2018, in which the trial Court granted the Respondents’ claims in a land dispute, with minor variations, and dismissed the Appellant’s counterclaim.

The dispute concerns a portion of land within a larger area known as Igodual land, situated in Ewoi Community, Ogbia Local Government Area of Bayelsa State. The Respondents, as claimants, instituted the action in 2011 (later amended in 2016), seeking a declaration of title to the disputed portion. The Appellant filed a statement of defence and a counterclaim denying the Respondents’ title.

The Respondents traced ownership of Igodual land through traditional history, beginning from Azu, through successive ancestors, down to the 1st Respondent, Felix Olerua, who they claimed exercised possession and control. They asserted that a portion of the land was pledged to Osain, whose descendants, including the Appellant’s mother, farmed it until the pledge was redeemed. Despite redemption, the Appellant allegedly refused to relinquish possession and proceeded to develop the land.

At trial, the Respondents called four witnesses. The trial Court found their traditional evidence more credible and consistent than the Appellant’s, which it held to be contradictory. Consequently, the Court upheld the Respondents’ claim to title and dismissed the Appellant’s counterclaim.

Dissatisfied with the judgment, the Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal.

ISSUE(S) FOR DETERMINATION:

The Court adopted the issue for determination as distilled by the appellant which reads thus:

Whether the trial Judge ought not to have dismissed the suit instead of proceeding to enter judgment in favour of the Respondents, despite having found himself that the Respondents failed to prove the pledge, being the basis upon which they claimed reliefs against the Appellant.

DECISION/HELD:

The Court dismissed the appeal.

RATIOS:

·      APPEAL- INTERFERENCE WITH EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE: Duty of an appellate Court where an Appellant alleges that a trial Court had not properly evaluated the evidence led; instance where an appellate Court will/will not interfere with such evaluation of evidence       

·      EVIDENCE- TRADITIONAL EVIDENCE/HISTORY: Duty of court when parties give competing traditional evidence       

·      LAND LAW- DECLARATION OF TITLE TO LAND: Basis for the grant of a declaration of title to land

·      LAND LAW- DECLARATION OF TITLE TO LAND: Whether evidence of traditional history alone can sustain a claim for declaration of title to land

·      LAND LAW- DECLARATION OF TITLE TO LAND: Whether long possession of a land can found a claim of declaration of title to such land against the true owner of the land

·      LAND LAW- POSSESSION OF LAND: Whether a person who has better title over land, though not in physical possession, will be deemed to be the person in possession of the land  

·      LAND LAW- POSSESSION OF LAND: Who does the law ascribe possession of land in dispute to

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