Kuna Dogo V. Yaya Adamu (1997)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

OGUNTADE, J.C.A.

At the Gombe Civil Area Court, the present respondent was the plaintiff and the appellant the defendant. I shall hereinafter refer to the parties by their description at the trial court.

The claims of the parties are encapsulated in the statements appearing hereunder which each of the parties made at the commencement of the suit. The plaintiff said:

“I, Yaya Adamu, I’m suing Kuna Dogo on a land dispute of which I cleared the land for at least 11 years working on the place, by then Kuna Dogo gifted the land to Yerima Dogo and he said I have to keep away from the said land, so because of this reason I want the court to took (sic) back my land.

The defendant on the other hand said:

“This land is owned by me not owned by Yaya Adamu because I am the one who borrowed it to him after they had a fight with his father”.

My understanding of the plaintiff’s statement reproduced above is that the plaintiff claimed to have been in possession of the land for 11 years. The defendant then purported to make a gift of the land in plaintiff’s possession to one Yerima Dogo. The plaintiff therefore sued claiming possession of the land.

The defendant’s reaction is that the land in dispute belonged to him.

Now at the trial before Gombe Civil Area Court, the parties called witnesses.

At the witnesses called by the plaintiff testified to the effect that the plaintiff had been in possession of the land for 11 years. They did not give evidence as to how the plaintiff derived his possession of the land. They said the plaintiff cleared the land of bush. Was the land a virgin forest such that it can be said that the plaintiff became its owner by first clearing it?

The defendant’s witnesses all testified that the defendant had been in possession of the land for 33 years. They said further that it was the defendant who permitted the plaintiff to farm on the land. There was also no evidence from the defendant as to the origin of his title.

The Gombe Civil Area Court in its “Finding of the Court” said inter alia:

“Even if it was confirmed that you spend 11 years in possession of the farm it does not showed (sic) that you are the owner of the place because you are related with Kuna Dogo and the 3 (three) witnesses called by Kuna Dogo, they were all elders and they know the origin of the place and they showed the farm-land before the court at the time the court visited the farm, so because of this, the court will not considered (sic) the statement made by your witnesses because they are all youth and they don’t know the origin of the farm”.

The plaintiff who lost before the Gombe Civil Area Court brought an appeal against the Judgment before the Upper Area Court, Gombe. The Upper Area Court, Gombe in its judgment on 5-6-90 set aside the judgment of the Gombe Civil Area Court and ordered a retrial. It however held that the defendant was the owner of the land. The defendant appealed against the judgment of the Upper Area Court. The plaintiff also cross-appealed. The appeal was heard by the Bauchi State High Court (hereinafter called the Lower Court) in its appellate jurisdiction.