CASE TITLE: KOFARE & ANOR v. TAHIR & ANOR (2024) LPELR-63072(CA)
JUDGMENT DATE: 28TH NOVEMBER, 2024
PRACTICE AREA: LAND LAW
LEAD JUDGMENT: NNAMDI OKWY DIMGBA, J.C.A.
SUMMARY OF JUDGMENT:
INTRODUCTION:
This appeal borders on Land Law.
FACTS:
This is an appeal against the judgment of the High Court of Adamawa State sitting in Yola in Suit No. ADSY/97/2019 delivered on 25/11/2020 by A. A. Waziri, J. (now JCA), wherein the trial Court dismissed the suit of the Appellants suing as plaintiffs against the Respondents sued as defendants/counter-claimants and granted the reliefs in the counter-claim being a declaration of title over a disputed piece of land and kindred reliefs.
The dispute concerns a piece of land in Kofare Industrial Layout located opposite Zone 3 Police Command Office, Kofare Jimeta Yola, Adamawa State. The Appellants claim the entire land to measure over 4 hectares and as plaintiffs had sued the Respondents as defendants at the lower Court for the ownership of the said land. They base their claim on traditional evidence that the land was founded by their grandfather Alhaji Hamman Jidda Kofare, their progenitor, and devolved to successive or intervening owners up to the Appellants’ father and now the Appellants themselves. The land was compulsorily acquired and made a layout by the then Gongola State (now Adamawa State) Government without payment of compensation. The Respondents counter-claimed and asserted ownership of the land, relying on the root of title as a Certificate of Occupancy over Plot No. GS/160 Registered at No. 504, an area consisting of 5741.35 square meters. At trial, the Appellants testified for themselves as PW1 and PW2, respectively, and tendered 28 documents, which were all admitted and marked Exhibits A, B1-B23, C, D1 – D2. The 1st Respondent testified for the Respondents only as DW1, with 11 documents tendered which were all admitted and marked Exhibits E1 – E4, F1- F5 and G, respectively. At conclusion, the learned trial Judge upon consideration of the evidence and submissions of counsel dismissed the claim of the Appellants and granted the reliefs sought in the counterclaim.
It is the Appellant’s dissatisfaction with the above judgment that has triggered this appeal.
ISSUE(S) FOR DETERMINATION:
The Court considered the following issues:
1. Whether the learned trial Judge was right when he held that the Plaintiffs/Appellants have failed to prove their traditional title to the land subject matter of the suit.
2. Whether the land trial Judge was right when it declared to title over Plot No. GS/160 registered at page 504 in volume 3 in the land registry Yola at Kofare, Jimeta, consisting of an area of 5741.35 square meters in favour of the Defendants/Respondents and granted all the reliefs of the Respondents as contained in their Counter Claim.
DECISION/HELD:
In conclusion, the appeal was dismissed.
RATIOS:
- ACTION- COUNTER-CLAIM: Nature of a counter-claim
- ACTION- JOINDER OF PARTY(IES): When it will be necessary to join the State Government in an action bordering on acquisition of land
- APPEAL- INTERFERENCE WITH EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE: Duty of trial court to evaluate evidence and ascribe probative value to same; when an Appellate Court will not interfere
- EVIDENCE- BURDEN OF PROOF/ONUS OF PROOF: Burden on a party to prove the existence of the facts asserted
- EVIDENCE- PROOF OF TITLE TO LAND: Ways of proving title to land in an action for declaration of title; whether a claimant/plaintiff needs to prove all the five ways
- EVIDENCE- TRADITIONAL EVIDENCE/HISTORY: What is required of a person relying on evidence of traditional history in an action for declaration of title to land
- LAND LAW- IDENTITY OF LAND: Need for identity of a land to be ascertained
- LAND LAW- ACQUISITION OF LAND: Whether when land is compulsorily acquired, the title on the land so acquired become extinguished by reason of the acquisition
- LAND LAW- CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY: Whether a certificate of occupancy raises the presumption of ownership of land and exclusive possession
- LAND LAW- ACQUISITION OF LAND: Effect of failure to make a claim for title or compensation for land compulsorily acquired by Government timeously
To read the full judgment or similar judgments, subscribe to Prime or Primsol
