Ibrahim Councillor Jimlari V. Jauro Santi Tippi (2010)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

ABUBAKAR DATTI YAHAYA, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

At the High Court of Jalingo, Taraba State, the appellant as plaintiff, filed an action against the respondent as defendant claiming for –

“(a) A declaration of title to the parcel of land lying and situated at Abuja, Jalingo measuring approximately 400 x 400 being part of a larger land which plaintiff bought from one Jauro Notani in 1982.

(b) An order of court directing the defendant to remove all he has brought on and deposited on the land.

(c) An order of perpetual injunction restraining the defendant howsoever and by whomsoever from further trespass.

(d) N100,000.00 general damages for trespass.

(e) Cost of filing and prosecution of this action.”

The respondent denied the claim and filed a statement of defence. After the exchange of pleadings, the matter went to trial.

The case of the appellant at the trial court in which he called three witnesses and also testified for himself as the fourth witness, is that he purchased a large parcel of land in 1982 from one Jauro Notani. The sale was witnessed by people and a written agreement was drawn up as evidence of payment of the land. It was tendered and marked as Exhibit P1. The appellant at a later time, sold some portion of the land he so bought, to some named people. The un-sold portion is what he said the respondent had trespassed and encroached upon. It is the disputed land he said.

The respondent who denied the claim, called three witnesses and stated that the land in dispute belonged to him, having inherited same from his late father Tippi.

On conclusion of the trial, the lower trial court made a finding that the appellant had established that he bought the land in dispute from Jauro Notan, but it dismissed his case, stating that it was not clear, how Jauro Notani got title to the piece of land. It also held that the appellant had failed to establish with clarity, the extent and boundaries of the land he was laying claim to.

Being dissatisfied with the judgment, the appellant filed an appeal to this court vide his Notice and five grounds of appeal on the 9th July, 2004. His brief of argument was filed by his counsel, Mr. E.D. Galumje on the 26/8/2005 but deemed filed on the 14/2/2006. The respondent’s brief of argument was filed on the 8th of March, 2006.

In the appellant’s brief of argument, three issues for determination were identified. They are –

1. Whether the Learned Trial Judge was right in basing his decision on his inability to understand and comprehend the evidence of the witnesses he had the singular privilege of seeing and hearing instead of the evidence on record.
2. Whether the Learned Trial Judge was right in dismissing the plaintiff’s case without considering all issues and claims raised before him.
3. Whether the Learned Trial Judge was right in dismissing the plaintiff’s case when he held thus: “The plaintiff has failed to establish with clarity the extent and boundaries of the land he is claiming before me.”

For the respondent, two issues were identified to be