Dodo Dabo V. Alhaji Ikira Abdullahi (2005)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

ONU, J.S.C.

This is an appeal from the judgment of the Kaduna division of the Court of Appeal (Coram: Isa Ayo Salami, Victor A. O. Omage and Joseph J. Umoren, JJ.C.A.) delivered on the 5th of December, 2000 in Appeal No. CA/K10/99 wherein the learned Justices unanimously dismissed the appellant’s appeal against the judgment of Umaru Adamu, J. of the Kaduna High Court. The action was commenced as suit No. KDH/ KAD/132/90 in the High Court with the appellant as the defendant while the respondent was the plaintiff.

The facts of the case briefly stated are that by his writ of summons contained on pages 1 to 3 of the record, the respondent claimed against the appellant for a declaration of title, an injunction and N10,000 general damages for trespass on the plot of land covered by statutory certificate of occupancy No. 8764.

The appellant for his part, filed a statement of defence in which he claimed that he was granted a customary right of occupancy over the piece of land in 1968 by the Sarkin Kakuri Bwari, and that he continued to occupy the piece of land and built a house thereon until 1977, when the house was demolished by the Government of Kaduna State as being an illegal structure. His petition for compensation was rejected and instead the Government promised him an alternative plot.

When he waited in vain for the alternative plot, he searched for another piece of land and applied for it, but again, he was informed that it was allocated to another person. When, however, he became aware that the place where his house had been demolished would be made an area for small scale industries by the Government of Kaduna State, he applied that the piece of land where his house had been demolished be allocated to him to enable him set up a block industry.This application was not approved. However, the Kaduna State Government granted the piece of land to the respondent.

The appellant further stated that while waiting for the approval of his application to the State Government, he equally approached the Kaduna Local Government which then issued him a certificate of occupancy (exhibit 5) over the piece of land on which he commenced development only to be stopped by the respondent on the ground that he, the respondent, had been granted the piece of land by the Kaduna State Government.

The appellant then claimed in his pleading that the respondent’s statutory certificate of occupancy No. 8764 (exhibit 2) was not properly issued as due processes were not complied with; consequent upon which an Assistant Chief Lands Officer had recommended to the Chief Lands Officer the withdrawal of respondent’s said certificate of occupancy.

The appellant’s pleading concluded with averments that his right of occupancy (exhibit 5) granted by the Kaduna Local Government still subsisted, thus constituting a better title with a claim for N50,000 as general damages for trespass against the respondent.

The respondent had filed a reply and a defence to the counterclaim in which he denied that neither the alleged customary grant of 1968 (exhibit 3) nor the Local Government Certificate of Occupancy (exhibit 5) were over the piece of land in dispute, and further that the piece of land in dispute was within an urban area within the meaning of the Land Use Act.

The respondent testified and tendered exhibits 1 and 2, the statutory certificate of occupancy No. NC.8764. On the appellant’s part, contrary to his pleading that he was given the land in 1968 by the Sarkin Kakuri Gwari, in his testimony, he backdated the alleged gift to 1963.

Issues turned in the course of the trial on some discrepancies in exhibit 2, the statutory certificate of occupancy, particularly as to the reference in the schedule of exhibit 2 of the piece of land being in “Rigachikun in Kaduna Local Government.”

As to this discrepancy, the appellant’s witnesses, to wit; DW3, DW4 and DW5, all staff of the Bureau of Lands and Survey, Kaduna State, confirmed that the locus in quo as being synonymous with the land identified as exhibit 2 and identical to the land appellant was disputing with the respondent.

It is instructive to note that the appellant under cross-examination conceded that it is the same piece of land where his house was demolished in 1977 by the Kaduna State Government as being an illegal structure (for which he was advised to approach either, Kachia or Kaduna Local Government for alternative plot) that he is presently disputing ownership with the respondent.

The appellant had submitted only two issues for determination in his address at the trial court, namely: