Alhaji Isiyaku Yakubu V Alhaji Usman Jauroyel & Ors (2014)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

JOHN AFOLABI FABIYI, J.S.C.

This is an appeal against the majority decision of the Court of Appeal, Jos Division (the court below) delivered on 27th day of January, 2005. Therein, the judgment of Gwam, J. of Adamawa State High Court, Yola delivered on 13th day of June, 1995 in which the appellant’s claim was dismissed in its entirety, was affirmed by the court below.

It is apt to state the facts leading to this appeal briefly. The appellant as plaintiff at the trial court, maintained that he was granted a piece of land measuring 6,149 square metres by the defunct Gongola State Government (now Adamawa State) at Mubi GRA covered by Certificate of Occupancy No. GS/5705, marked by concrete beacons Nos. D1470, D1476, D1475 and D1470A. He maintained that when he went to the land in a bid to fence it, he discovered that some of the beacons were missing. He wrote to the Ministry of Land and Survey but got no response. He subsequently visited the land again and found the 1st defendant/respondent’s workers on a portion of the land working. He told them to stop working. The 1st defendant/respondent refused and claimed that he had a right to the parcel of land.

The plaintiff filed his suit originally against the 1st defendant. In his statement of claim, he sought for an order of injunction to restrain the 1st defendant from continuing to perpetuate his acts of trespass and claimed N40,000.00 as damages.

The 1st defendant denied most of the crucial allegations of the plaintiff. He maintained that he applied for land in 1982 and was allocated the plot of land in dispute by the Ministry of Lands and Survey, Yola. He asserted that the Certificate of Occupancy held by the plaintiff was fraudulently obtained.

Before the trial court, the appellant testified and called P.W.2, an official of the Ministry of Lands and Survey. He then applied to join the 2nd and 3rd defendants. As well, he also filed an application to amend his statement of claim. Therein, he claimed declaration that he is the titular owner of the piece of land covered by Certificate of Occupancy GS/5705 at Mamiso Road, Mubi, perpetual injunction to restrain the defendants and N40,000 against the 1st defendant for trespass. His applications were granted. The stated new parties filed their joint statement of defence and the trial continued. The defendants called two witnesses including the 1st defendant in person.

At the conclusion of the trial, the trial judge delivered his judgment in which he dismissed the claims of the plaintiff in its entirety, basically on the grounds that the evidence of the plaintiff and his witness was conflicting and that the Certificate of Occupancy issued to him ‘was false, fake and counterfeit’. The plaintiff felt unhappy with the stance of the trial court and appealed to the court below which heard the appeal and dismissed it. By a majority decision, the judgment of the trial court was upheld. The appellant has decided to further appeal to this court with the leave granted him on 17th May, 2006.

On 3rd February, 2014 when the appeal was heard, N. A. Ibrahim, learned counsel who appeared for the appellant adopted the brief of argument filed on 21st March, 2007 as well as the Reply brief to the 1st respondent’s brief filed on 24th April, 2013. He urged that the appeal be allowed.

R. C. Emem, learned counsel for the 1st respondent adopted the brief filed on 29th June, 2009 but deemed filed on 18th February,2013. He urged the court to dismiss the appeal. In the same vein, U. V. Obi, learned counsel for the 2nd and 3rd respondents adopted the brief filed on 28th January, 2014 but deemed regularly filed on 3rd February, 2014. After withdrawing arguments in paragraph 4.32 at pages 14-15 of the stated brief, he urged the court to dismiss the appeal.

On page 2 of the appellant’s brief of argument, three issues were formulated for determination; as follows:-

“ISSUE NO. 1

Could it truly be said that there were material conflicts in the evidence adduced by the appellant and his witness to have made the Court of Appeal affirm the decision of the trial court

ISSUE NO. 2

Was the Court of Appeal right to have endorsed the finding of the trial court that the Certificate of Occupancy was fake, false and fraudulent when the respondents admitted having issued the Certificate to the appellant