CASE TITLE: Ahmed v. Adedokun (2023) LPELR-60450(CA)
JUDGMENT DATE: 5TH JUNE, 2023
PRACTICE AREA: LAND LAW
LEAD JUDGMENT: UGOCHUKWU ANTHONY OGAKWU.
SUMMARY OF JUDGMENT:
INTRODUCTION:
This appeal borders on the declaration of title to land.
FACTS:
This appeal is against the decision of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja in SUIT NO. FCT/HC/CV/198/2014.
The disputed land in this action is situated at and known as Plot 123, Kubwa Commercial Layout in the Bwari Area Council of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja. The parties trace their presence on the disputed land to a common vendor, one GUMUZU (NIGERIA) LIMITED. The parties were engaged in contestation as to who was entitled to the land.
The Appellant instituted this action before the trial Court wherein he claimed the following reliefs:
a. Declaration that Gumuzu (Nig) Ltd who was in possession of the land by virtue of the Bwari Area Council Zonal Planning Department File BZTP/LA/2003/MISC 2310 of Gumuzu (Nig) Ltd whom Gumuzu (Nig) Ltd derived possession of the land and subsequently put the Plaintiff in possession of the land, the Plaintiff is the rightful person in possession of the land trespass by the Defendant.
b. Declaration that by the comparison of Abuja Municipal Area Council of the Conveyance, Provisional Approval found in Gumuzu (Nig) Ltd Policy file i.e BZTP/LA/2003/MISC 2310 kept in Bwari Area Council, Abuja, the Plaintiff Conveyance of Provisional Approval is the same discovered in File No: BZTP/LA/2003/MISC 2310 while that of the Defendant is not found, therefore Plaintiff is deemed to be the rightful person in possession of the land trespass by the defendant.
c. Declaration that the act of the Defendant in tampering with the land in possession of Plaintiff amount to trespass.
d. Declaration that Plaintiff is entitled to enjoy exclusive possession of Land Plot 123 measuring about 2500 sq.m. at Kubwa Commercial Layout, Bwari Area Council, F.C.T. Abuja trespass by Defendant.
e. An order of this honourable Court for an injunction restraining the Defendant either by himself, privies, executors, administrators, agents, successors and assigns from further trespass into the said Land.
f. An order for payment of N300,000,000.00 (Three Hundred Million Naira) only general Damages for trespass into the Land.”
Pleadings were filed and exchanged, and issues having been joined on the pleadings, the matter was subjected to a full-blown plenary trial at which testimonial and documentary evidence were adduced by the parties.
In its decision, the trial Court held that the Appellant did not prove his claim and dismissed his case in its entirety.
Peeved by the decision of the trial Court, the Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal.
ISSUES:
The appeal was determined on the following issue viz:
Whether on the preponderance of evidence and balance of probability, the lower Court rightly held that the Appellant did not prove his case.
DECISION/HELD:
On the whole, the appeal was dismissed.
RATIOS:
- LAND LAW – CLAIM FOR TRESPASS AND INJUNCTION – Whether a claim for trespass and injunction automatically puts title to land in issue
- LAND LAW – ROOT OF TITLE – Duty of a party who traces his root of title to a particular person
- GOVERNMENT AGENCY – FEDERAL CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY/MINISTER OF FEDERAL CAPITAL TERRITORY – Whether it is only the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory that has the power to allocate land in the Federal Capital Territory
- LAND LAW – POSSESSION OF LAND – Who the law ascribes possession where two parties who are unable to prove title to a disputed land claim are in possession of the land
- EVIDENCE – PROOF OF TITLE TO LAND – Position of the law where both parties fail to prove title to land
