Alhaji Maina Bukar v. The Governor Of Borno State & Ors (2025)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

UGOCHUKWU ANTHONY OGAKWU, JCA (Delivering the leading judgment)

The appellant was the claimant in an action before the High Court of Borno State in suit No. BOHC/KDG/CV/02/2022: Alhaji Maina Bukar v. The Governor of Borno State & Anor. The appellant by his amended statement of claim, claimed the following reliefs against the respondents who were the defendants at the lower court:

a. A declaration that the claimant is both the legal, equitable and lawful owner of all that parcel of farm land contained in file No. KLG/WKS/LAND/719/Vol. covered by Customary Certificate of Occupancy No. 000338 dated 20th day of May, 1998 in Volume 1 page of Register bearing the name of Alhaji Mai Modu Kukanbori situate at New Site Magaranti Konduga Local Government Area of Borno State measuring 250ft x 250ft.

b. A declaration that the 1st and 2nd defendants cannot take over 2000sqm out of the farmland of the claimant described above without recourse to due process of law.

c. A declaration that the defendants are trespassers over the 2000sqm of the claimants farmland described above.

d. An order of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants whether by itself, its agencies, parastatals or any person or authority howsoever called claiming through the defendants from taking over 2000sqm or any part thereof the farm land of the claimant without recourse to the procedure laid down by law.

e. N999,999.99 as damages for trespass.

f. Cost of this suit.

The parties filed and exchanged pleadings, and issues having been joined on the pleadings; the matter proceeded to a full dressed hearing where testimonial and documentary evidence was adduced by the parties. In its judgment, the lower court held that the appellant failed to discharge the burden of proof on him. It accordingly dismissed the appellants claim for lack of merit.

The appellant, peeved by the decision of the lower court appealed against the same by notice of appeal filed on 1st June, 2023. The judgment of the lower court which was delivered on 15th March, 2023 is at pages 77 – 106 of the records of appeal, while the notice of appeal is at pages 107-113 of the records of appeal.

In prosecution of the appeal, the records of appeal having been compiled and transmitted, the parties filed and exchanged briefs of argument which learned counsel adopted and relied upon at the hearing of the appeal.

The briefs on which the appeal was argued are the appellants brief filed on 21st February, 2024 but deemed as properly filed on 2nd December, 2024, the respondents brief filed on 10th January, 2025 but deemed as properly filed on 28th January, 2025 and the appellants reply brief filed on 24th February, 2025 but deemed as properly filed on 25th February, 2025. The appellant distilled seven issues for determination, which issues were adopted by the respondent. The said issues are:

1. Whether the trial court was right when it admitted and relied on the witness statement on oath of DW1, holding that the failure to comply with the requirement of signing a witness statement on oath before an authorized person is a mere irregularity/technicality which cannot warrant its being expunged. (Ground 1)
2. Whether exhibit MJ4 was rightly admitted in evidence at the trial court despite being tendered by a witness whose witness statement on oath was itself inadmissible for non-compliance with the requirement of the law regarding its deposition. (Ground 3)
3. Whether the trial court rightly held that there was a valid acquisition and allocation of land, despite the evidence of non-payment of compensation to the subsisting interest holders at the point of the purported acquisition and allocation by the 1st and 2nd respondents. (Ground 2)
4. Whether the evidence adduced by the appellant/claimant at the trial court was not sufficient to trace and establish the title of the appellant deriving from the title of his vendor over the land in dispute. (Ground 4)
5. Whether the trial Judge was not in error when he raised the issue of locus standi and payment of compensation, when the claim of the appellant/claimant was only one of declaration of title to land and reliefs against trespass. (Ground 5)
6. Whether the learned trial Judge was right when he failed to consider and make pronouncement on the appellants claim of damages for trespass and injunction against the defendants throughout the judgment of the trial court. (Ground 6)
7. Whether the findings of the trial court were supported by the evidence adduced at the trial. (Grounds 7 & 8)

The issues formulated for determination take their bearing from the grounds of appeal. From the said issues, the disceptation in this appeal can be stratified, considered and resolved under the strata of whether the testimony of the DW1 and exhibit MJ4 were rightly held by the lower court to be legal evidence on which it could determine the matter (this is the question interrogated in issue numbers one and two), and whether the lower court rightly held that the appellants claim lacked merit, given the fact that there was no valid compulsory acquisition of the land.

These are the issues collectively interrogated in issue numbers three to seven. Accordingly, it is based on this stratification that I will now consider the submissions of learned counsel, starting with issue numbers one and two together and thereafter issue numbers three to seven together.