Farmers Supply Company (Kds) Ltd. V. Alhaji Taofic Mohammed (2009)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

AMINA ADAMU AUGIE, J.C.A :

After a house he was building at plot D9 Constitution Road, Kaduna, was demolished by the Appellant, the Respondent sued the Company at the High Court, Kaduna, wherein he claimed for-

(i) A Declaration that he is the rightful holder of the Certificate of Occupancy over the land situate at plot D9 Constitution Road, Kaduna;

(ii) The sum of N2, 833, 410.00 being the current value of the development and materials at the site;

(iii) The sum of N100, 000.00 as damages for trespass; and

(iv) An Order of perpetual injunction…

At the trial, the Respondent testified as PW3, called three other witnesses, and tendered Exhibits 1 – 11 in evidence. His case is that he bought the land from PW1, Alhaji Isa Yahaya, who was allocated the land and issued with a Certificate of Occupancy (Exhibit 1) from Kaduna Local Government. The Appellant called one witness and tendered one document in evidence [Exhibit 12].

The Appellant’s case is that it was granted Exhibit 12 by the then Kaduna State Ministry of Lands and Survey in respect of a large expanse of land of over 40 plots, including the plot in dispute.

In his Judgment delivered on the 6th of July 2000, M. L. Bello, J., held that the Respondent had established his title through sale.

Aggrieved by the decision, the Appellant appealed to this Court with a Notice of Appeal containing six Grounds of Appeal, and with leave of Court five Additional Grounds of Appeal were later filed. Briefs of arguments were duly filed and exchanged and in the Appellant’s brief prepared by Murtala A. Yusuf, Esq., the following six Issues were formulated for determination in this appeal –

(1) Whether having regard to the evidence adduced before the Court below the Respondent could be said to be the rightful holder of Certificate of Occupancy over the land in dispute.

(2) Whether the Respondent could successfully claim title to the land in dispute solely on the strength of the Power of Attorney [Exhibit 5].

(3) Whether the Respondent’s claim – was not bound to fail for PW1’s (and or the Respondent’s) non – compliance with the provisions of Sections 5 (1) & 21 (a) or (b) of the Land Use Act Cap 202 LFN 1990, S. 14 of the Land Registration Law Cap 85 Laws of Kaduna State 1991, and the provisions of the Kaduna State (Designation of Lands on Urban Area) Order 1980.

(4) Whether the Learned trial Judge was right in holding that Exhibit 12 – a Grant of a Right of Occupancy does not confer any title on the Appellant in respect of the vast area of land mentioned therein –