Alh. Jimoh Ajadi Suu V. Jobak Nigeria Ltd. (2012)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

ITA GEORGE MBABA, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

The Appellant in this appeal who was the claimant at the lower court appealed against the judgment of Honourable Justice Halimat Saleeman, Kwara State High Court, in suit No. KWS/223/2005, delivered on 24th April, 2009 whereof the trial judge dismissed the claim for declaration of title, injunction and damages sought by the claimant in respect of the land in dispute, measuring 100 by 125 feet (2 1/2 plots), situate at Ita-Ayisa on the right hand side of Ilorin – Ajase Ipo Road, Ilorin, located within Ilorin west Local Government – Area of Kwara state.

The claimant had sought a declaration that he was the deemed holder and entitled to statutory right of occupancy over the said land and an injunction restraining the Defendant (Respondent herein), its servants, agents and privies and any other person(s) claiming through under it from developing, building or selling, disposing, alienating, or in any manner, dealing with and/or trespassing or further trespassing on the said parcel of land. (see page 4 of the Record of Appeal).

Appellant filed his Notice and Grounds of Appeal on the 6th of July, 2009 and framed eleven (11) grounds of appeal as shown on pages 180 to 186 of the Record of Appeal. He thereafter filed his Brief on 28/9/2010 within time, and a Reply Brief on 15/2/2012 which was deemed duly filed on 21/2/2012. He distilled 4 Issues for the determination of the Appeal, as follows:

(1)Whether or not the Lower Court was right in its rejection of copies of letters dated 06/04/2005 and 29/05/2005 written to the Director of Lands, Kwara State and Divisional Police Officer, Ganmo Police Station by the Appellant on the ground that they are public documents which require certification (Ground 10).

(2)Whether or not, having regard to the State of pleadings and evidence before the Court, the Lower Court was right in holding that the standard of proof in land matter is sui generis and an exception to the two principles of law on effects of admission by pleadings and unchallenged evidence and that because paragraph 4 of appellant’s Amended Statement of claim negated paragraphs 6, 11, 12 and 13 of the same Amended Statement of claim, the respondents’ case could not support that of the appellant (Ground 4).

(3) Whether or not the lower Court was right in its conclusion/decision that Section 34 (5) of the Land Use Act 1978 is not applicable to the appellant because the appellant failed to prove his claim by reasons of contradiction in the pleadings and evidence of the claimant/appellant, particularly the evidence of PW1 and Exhibit P1 on the appellant’s root of title, the appellant’s failure to prove the pleaded traditional history of ownership and exclusive possession and in view of rival claim of possession by the defendant/respondent (Grounds 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 11).

(4)Whether or not the Lower Court was right in holding that having regard to Exhibits D1, D2, D3 and D6, the land in dispute was lawfully and legally acquired and the issuance of Exhibit D5 to the Respondent was proper under the Land Use Act 1978 (Grounds 8 and 9).

At the hearing of the Appeal on 21/2/2012, Appellant’s counsel swapped relationship of issues and the grounds of appeal between issues 2 and 3, by saying that issue 3 was distilled from ground 4 while issue 2 was distilled from grounds 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 11.

The Respondent’s Brief was filed on 16/12/2011 and was deemed duly filed on 26/1/2012. The Respondent adopted the four (4) issues distilled by the Appellant but with slight modifications, as follows:

“(1) Whether the lower Court was wrong when it rejected the letters dated 29/05/2005 and 06/04/2005 purportedly addressed to the Divisional Police Officer, Ganmo and the Ministry of Lands respectively, by the Claimant/Appellant’s solicitor on the ground that they (the said letters) are public documents which require certification. (Ground 10).

(2) Whether from the totality of the pleadings and evidence before the Lower court, the Lower court was wrong when it found that the standard of proof in this situation was sui generis and thereafter dismissed the claimant/Appellant’s suit for want of sufficient proof and on the ground that the Defendant/Respondent’s case did not support that of the Appellant (Grounds 4).

(3) Whether judging from the totality of the pleadings and evidence before the lower court, the lower court wrongly evaluated Section 34(5) of the Land Use Act 1978 against the Claimant/Appellant (Grounds 1, 2, 3, 5, 6,7 and 11).

(4) Whether the Lower Court rightly analyzed Exhibit D1, D2, D3 and D6 when it concluded that the land in dispute was lawfully and legally acquired and whether Exhbit D5 was properly issued to the Respondent in line with the dictates of the land use Act 1978. (Grounds 8 and 9)”.