First Bank Of Nigeria Plc V. Jibrin Okelewu & Anor (2013)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

TINUADE AKOMOLAFE-WILSON, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

The Appellant, a corporate body, as claimant filed an action before the Kogi state High court, Lokoja presided over by Hon. Justice S. T. Husseini against the Respondents, seeking for the following reliefs:

(a) A declaration that the Claimant is the bonafide, beneficial and customary owner of a parcel of land lying and situated near new post office, Anyigba measuring 0.36 hectares or 60m x 50m and bounded by Dekina Local Government beacon Nos. AY 1646, 1647, 1648, 1649, 1650 AND 1651 covered by Dekina Local Government Certificate of Occupancy No.2102 dated 10/10/1986.

(b) An order of perpetual injunction restraining the Defendants by themselves or their agents, privies, servants or whosever or any person claiming title through them from building on the land in dispute or further trespassing into it or from alienating it in part or whole the land in dispute and from doing any act on it.

(c) An order of this Court enabling the Claimant to pull down the fence and any structures erected on the land in dispute.

(d) N500,000.00 general damages for tort of trespass’

(e) Cost of this action.

The Respondents did not counter-claim.

The Appellant in proof of its case called one witness who testified as PW1, the Bank Manager of the claimant’s Bank at Anyigba; and tendered Exhibits P1, P2(a), (b), Pw3, P4 (a) and (d) Ps (a) & (b)’ Exhibits P3 and P5 were admitted provisionally by the lower court but P2 (a) & (b) were discountenanced at the judgment.

The Appellant claimed ownership of the land in dispute by virtue of allocation to her by Dekina Local Government vide a certificate of occupancy No.2102 dated 10/10/86. She complained that sometime in July 2009′ the 1st Respondent through the 2nd Respondent trespassed into the land in dispute, cleared the land, dug a foundation and built a fence round the whole land and all efforts to stop the Respondents from further work proved abortive hence the action at the lower court.

The Respondents in defence, called three witnesses who testified as DW1, DW2, DW3 while the 1st Respondent testified as DW4, and tendered Exhibits D1, D2, D3, D4 and D5. The evidence is to the effect that the land in dispute which is a part of a larger parcel of land belongs to one Madam Attah Iyidi (DW1) by virtue of inheritance being a family farm land. The 1st Respondent traced his root of title to DW1 who sold the land to him. Portions of the land of DW1 had earlier been sold to DW2 and DW3 who are the immediate neighbours of 1st Respondent. The 1st Respondent claimed that the Appellant’s certificate of occupancy (Exhibit P1) and the site plan (Exhibit P3) are not in respect of the land in dispute.

The learned trial Judge, while dismissing the action held that the claimant failed to prove the identity of the land; and failed to establish that the land in dispute is on the layout of Dekina Local Government upon which the Local Government issued a certificate of occupancy in favour of the claimant. Being dissatisfied with the decision of the lower court, the claimant appealed against the judgment and filed ten grounds of appeal which were forwarded to this Honourable Court by a supplementary Record of Appeal dated 16/4/2012 hereby reproduced save for the particulars –

GROUND ONE:

The judgment of the lower court is against the weight of evidence