Mansur Abdullahi V. Alhaji Mohammadu Jabbo Bani (2014)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

TUNDE O. AWOTOYE, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

This is the judgment in respect of the appeal filed by the appellant against the judgment of Kebbi State High Court of Justice delivered on 27/6/2013 in KB/HC/11/2013.

The plaintiff had instituted an action against the defendant in the lower court claiming as follows:

“The claimant claim against the defendant:

1. A declaration that the claimant having been allocated all that piece of land known as plot No. 95 situate at LP33 phase II Gwadangwaji Area Birnin Kebbi measuring an area of about 0.098 hectres and covered by letter of grant no. BI/G/4063 is the owner of same, and is entitled to exclusive possession and enjoyment of same without disturbance from the defendant.
2. A declaration that the defendant’s act of entry and excavating the claimant’s land known as plot No. 95 situate at LP33 phase II Gwadangwaji Area Birnin Kebbi, measuring an area of about 0.098 hectres and covered by letter of grant no. BI/G/4063 dated the 27th November, 1998, with intent to build on same amounts to trespass unto the land.
3. An order of perpetual injunction restraining the Defendant by himself, his privies, agents, servants, from further act of trespass unto the claimant’s land known as plot No. 95 situate at LP33 phase II Gwadangwaji Area Birnin Kebbi, measuring an area of about 0.098 hectres and covered by letter of grant no. BI/G/4063 dated the 27th November, 1998.
4. N500,000.00 (Five Hundred Thousand Naira) only as general damages.
5. And for further order(s) as the court may deem fit to make in the circumstance of the case”

Parties filed and exchanged briefings. The lower court after hearing the parties gave judgment inter alia thus:

“I have earlier reviewed the evidence adduced by both parties. On the part of the defendant, he testified and tendered exhibits D1, D2, the defendant could not establish the relationship between exhibit D1 and D2 and the land in dispute, neither could he explain how exhibit D2 was arrived at. The defendant did not call the seller contained in D1 to testify as to his root of title.

The defendant did not also call Umaru Attahiru whose name exhibit D2 was issued.

It is trite law that the issuance or acquisition of Certificate of Occupancy does not and cannot confer title in respect of a parcel of land, it purported to cover where no such title either existed or was available to be transferred. See Kyari V. Alkali (2001) 31 WRN 88. Ogunyele V. Oni (1990) 2 NWLR pt. (135) 745. In the most recent case of Oyeyeyin V. Akinkugbe (2010) 1 MSCC (pt. 2) P. 1 at 7, the Supreme Court held that:

‘Mere production of a valid instrument of grant does not necessarily carry with it an automatic grant of declaration.’

I agree with the learned counsel for the claimant that Exhibit D and D1 have no probative and they did not advance the case of the defendant to anywhere.

In the light of the foregoing, I am satisfied that the claimant has better title to the land in dispute and I accordingly grant all the relief sought as per the statement of claim.”

Dissatisfied with the above judgment, the defendant appealed on 20/8/2013, vide his Notice of Appeal containing 5 Grounds of appeal. The grounds of appeal (without the particulars) are

“GROUND 1

The Judgment is against the weight of evidence.