Garkuwa Pina V. Jagaba Mai-angwa (2018)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

PAUL ADAMU GALINJE, J.S.C.

Sometimes in 1993, one Masinja Tanko claimed against the Respondent herein a declaration of title to a piece of land at the Area Court, Kuta, in Niger State. During the trial the Respondent who was then the defendant to that action was asked whether he has brought his witnesses to the Court. This is what he told the Court:-

The person I have brought is only one. He is Garkuwa Maikama and he is the one who gave me this piece of land and I continued borrowing it to other persons about six of them in number. And Garkuwa Ibrahim Makama is present in Court now and I want him to testify before this Court.

In his evidence before the area Court Kuta, the Appellant herein who was called by the Respondent testified as follows:-

1

I have heard Masinja Tanko the plaintiff and Maianguwan Jaba the defendant, but what I want to say to this Court is that there is no doubt that I borrowed Maianguwan Jeba the disputed farmland. But it is not gift and the disputed farmland is mine I inherited it from my grandfather. So I was the one who borrowed the land the land to Maiaguwan Jaba and there is no doubt that I know that borrowed out the same land to other persons. And the reasons why I borrowed the land to Maianguwan Jaba is because his father married my Aunt. So the land is mine and not for Masinja Tanko because Masinja Tanko has no piece of land on the disputed farmland.

In resolving the issue at stake, the area Court judge kuta proffered the following solution:-

Since it was Garkuwan Ibrahim Makama who borrowed the land to Maianguwan Jeba, this Court advises you, Masinja Tanko, the plaintiff to sue Garkuwan Ibrahim so that you can call your own witnesses, the Court adjourn this case from 5/7/1993 to enable Masinja Tanko the plaintiff to go home and discuss with his father whether to sue Garkuwan Ibrahim or to leave the matter.”

2

After the case at Kuta, the Appellant sought to take back his farmland, but the Respondent refused to hand over the farm to him. As a result, the Appellant instituted an action against the Respondent at the Upper Area Court II holden at Minna in Niger State in which he claimed declaration of title over the disputed piece of land. At the hearing of the case, the Appellant gave evidence and tendered the record of proceeding at Kuta Area Court which was admitted and marked Exhibit 1. The Respondent testified for himself and called six witnesses. At the end of the trial and addresses by parties’ respective counsel, the trial Court in a reserved and considered judgment delivered on the 28th of December, 1998 allowed the Respondent to farm the portion of the farm he occupied to enable him get food. He was however barred from sub-letting the farm to anybody, except where he obtained the consent of the Appellant herein. The Respondent before this Court was dissatisfied with the decision of the Upper Area Court.

Being aggrieved, he lodged an appeal at the High Court of Niger State. After hearing the parties, the High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the decision of the Upper Area Court, Minna and ordered a retrial of the suit before another area Court in Kuta.

3

The Appellant herein was dissatisfied with the decision of the High Court. He appealed to the Court of Appeal, Abuja Division. The Court of Appeal heard the appeal and in a reserved and considered judgment delivered on the 8th December, 2005 dismissed the appeal and varied the decision of the High Court by declaring title to the Respondent with cost of N5,000 in favour of the Respondent and against the appellant.

It is against the decision of the Lower Court that the Appellant has brought this appeal. The Appellant’s notice of appeal at pages 146 – 147 of the printed record of this appeal contains two grounds of appeal which I reproduce hereunder without their particulars as follows:-