Haladu Jibrin & Ors v. Mr. Hycienth O. Udeh (2024)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

ITA GEORGE MBABA, JCA (Delivering the leading judgment)

Appellants filed this appeal against the decision of the Taraba State High Court, in suit No. TRSJ/73/2017, delivered on 21st June, 2021, by Hon. Justice, J.D. Yakubu, wherein the trial court granted the reliefs sought by the plaintiff, (now respondent), against the defendants, (now appellants).

At the trial court the respondent, as plaintiff, sought the following reliefs:

(a) An order declaring title to the land measuring 75ft by 100ft, lying and situate at Mechanic Village, Kona Road, Jalingo, in Jalingo Local Government Area of Taraba State, bounded by the land of the plaintiff on the northern side, by the main road, on the eastern side, by west, an undeveloped land that belongs to another person, while by south, the land of one Engineer.

(b) An order declaring the defendants trespassers to the plaintiffs land.

(c) An order of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants, their heirs, agents, assigns, privies, successors in title or any person laying claim on the plaintiffs land, through them for further acts of trespass.

(d) The sum of One Million Naira (N1,000,000) general damages against the defendants, jointly and severally, for trespass.

(e) Cost of litigation. (See pages 1 7 of the records of appeal, and later amended on 26/10/2017 as per pages 101 to 108 of the records).

Appellants (as defendants), upon being served with the processes, filed their defence to deny the claim.

After hearing the case and considering the evidence and the addresses of counsel, the trial court held for the plaintiff, as per reliefs (a) (b) (c) and, in respect of (d), awarded N200,000.00 as general damages, to the plaintiff against the defendants. The trial court said:

Having regard to the findings and holding of this court above, regarding the status of the land in dispute before the plaintiff bought same from Mathias Jangai, vide exhibit P1 on record, the court is of the firm conviction that at the time Mathias Jangai sold the land in dispute to the plaintiff vide exhibit P1 the said land was in existence and in fact belong (sic) to the said Mathias Jangai by virtue of inheritance from his late father. This, the court so find and so hold.

Consequently, the doctrine of nemo dat quod non habet is applicable and same referred to by the defendants out of context.

On exhibit P1 the defendants contented that same being a purchase receipt cannot translate into a document of title and same does not transfer possession or convey title since same is not registered, cited in this regard by the defendants are the cases of Oluwo v. B.S. Ltd. (2010) 2 NWLR (Pt.1178) 310 CA, WAC v. Yankara (2008) 4 NWLR (Pt.1077) 323 CA, UBN Plc. v. Astra Builders (WA) Ltd. (2010) 5 NWLR (Pt.1186) 1 SC.

The arguments/submission of the defendants above, in my candid opinion, is misconceived. This is so as the law is that registration instrument like exhibit P1, even if it is not registered, once it is pleaded, like in the case at hand, it is admissible for the purposes of proving, not only payment of the purchase money, but also to prove equitable interest of the plaintiff, who is in possession of the land in dispute and instructive in this regard is the case of Okoye v. Dumez (1995) LPELR 2337 SC, per Kutugi, JSC