Alh. Ali Na Baba-iya V. Mustapha Mai Sikeli & Ors (2005)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

KEKERE-EKUN, J.C.A.

This is an appeal against the judgment of the High Court of Kano State, delivered on 21st June, 2004, in Suit No. K/660/99.

The facts that gave rise to this appeal as can be determined from the record of the trial court and the briefs of the parties are as follows:-

Sometime in 1977, the appellant purchased a piece of land from one Alhaji Mustapha Abubakar otherwise known as Mustapha Soron Dinki. The said property was covered by certificate of occupancy No. KN2053. In 1981, as a result of political riots in Kano, the ministry of land and survey was burnt down resulting in the loss of all documents of title filed therein including the appellant’s certificate of occupancy No. KN2053. Subsequently, the appellant was issued with a new certificate of occupancy No. LKN/CON/AG/RC/85/6 to replace the destroyed one. The appellant testified that he remained in peaceful possession of the land in dispute until 1997, when the respondents trespassed thereon destroying his crops and removing the property beacons. It was the appellant’s case that in spite of various warnings by the village and district heads of the area and a letter from the ministry of land and survey Kano State confirming his title to the property, the respondents persisted in their acts of trespass. The respondents in their defence contended that the property in dispute had been acquired along with others in the area by the Kano State Government in 1987 for overriding public interest and that it had been granted to the Dawaki-Dakata community (to which they belong) for the construction of a school, a Friday mosque and a market. They also contended that the appellant had received and signed for compensation in respect of his acquired land.

By paragraph 26 of his statement of claim dated 2019199 (page 22 of the printed record) the appellant sought the following reliefs:-

(a) A declaration that the plaintiff is entitled to all that piece or parcel of land situate at Dakata in the former Waje district now Nassarawa Local Government Area of Kano administrative area consisting of 0.6109 hectares covered by statutory certificate of occupancy No. LKN/CON/AG/RC/85/6.

(b) The sum of N200,000.00 being special and general damages for trespass committed by the defendants on (sic) various times and dates between 1997 and 1999, when the defendants wrongfully and unlawfully entered the plaintiff’s land at Dakata and destroyed the crops planted on the said farm land and removed all the boundary pillars executed by the Plaintiff on the said land together with all the property beacons.

(c) A perpetual injunction restraining the defendants, their agents, servants and or any other person or persons claiming through them or any of them from continuing with the aforementioned acts of destruction of the plaintiff’s crops and use of the said land.

At the conclusion of the trial during which both parties called witnesses and tendered documents in support of their respective cases the learned trial Judge dismissed the appellant’s claims and entered judgment for the respondents at page 74 of the printed record as follows:-

“Consequently, I hereby order that having been satisfied with the evidence before this court that the plaintiff’s land has been compulsorily acquired by the government and as being part of the land allocated for building of a Mosque at D/Dakata, the community can proceed to build its mosque on the acquired land, including that of the plaintiff. Nevertheless, I also order that the plaintiff should be paid his compensation adequately as was done to the others whose lands were acquired together with his own.

Judgment for the defendants.”

The appellant being dissatisfied with this judgment has appealed to this court by his notice of appeal dated 29th June, 2004, consisting of six grounds of appeal. In his brief of argument, the appellant formulated 5 issues for determination as follows:-

1. Whether on the basis of the pleadings filed and evidence adduced by the parties the trial court was right to declare that the title of the appellant over the property in dispute had been revoked by the Kano State government and proceed to allocate the said land to the Dawakin Dakata community, who were not a party to the action.(Ground One).
2. Whether a mere reference to “sit file” by DW4 in his evidence was enough for the trial Judge to conclude that the title of the appellant has been revoked for public purpose and compensation paid to him by the government.

(Grounds two and three).

3. In view of the evidence before the trial Judge whether it was correct for the trial Judge to declare that exhibits 6A and 6B conferred title to the respondents. (Ground four).
4. Whether in the absence of any note in the record of proceedings as to what happened when the visit was made to the locus in quo the trial Judge could still proceed and make some crucial observations of fact not supported by evidence. (Ground Five).
5. Whether the failure of the trial Judge to even make a glance to an elaborate written address submitted on behalf of the appellant amounted to a denial of fair hearing. (Ground Six).

The respondents in their brief of argument formulated four issues for determination as follows:-