Sale Kaduna & Ors v. Adi Atoshi & Ors (2025)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

NNAMDI OKWY DIMGBA, JCA (Delivering the leading judgment)

This appeal emanates from the judgment of the High Court of Taraba State, Wukari Division, delivered by J. D. Yakubu J., on the 9th of January, 2023, wherein the lower court dismissed the claim of the appellants who had sued – the respondents over a large piece of disputed farmland, being an aggregation of individual lands owned by the appellants. See pages 134 – 171 of the record.

The notice of appeal was filed on 23/01/23. This contains eight (8) grounds of appeal. The record of appeal was transmitted on 29/03/23, paving the way for the filing of the appellants’ brief of argument on 08/11/23 and a reply brief of argument on 22/04/24, both of which were deemed as properly filed on 23/04/24.

These briefs were settled by Karkaji Dan-Adi, Esq. The respondents’ brief of argument was filed on 19/04/24 but deemed as properly filed on 23/04/24. This brief was settled by Audu Yahaya, Esq.

On 30/10/24 when the appeal came up for hearing, learned counsel for both parties adopted their respective briefs of argument, adumbrated on same, with the appellants’ counsel urging the court to allow the appeal and set aside the judgment of the lower court, and the respondents’ counsel urging otherwise.

Factual background

The facts of the case leading to this appeal is that the appellants as plaintiffs took out a writ of summons dated 09/06/20 against the respondents as defendants at the High Court of Taraba State, Wukari Division, claiming the following reliefs:

1. A declaration that the plaintiffs jointly and severally are the owners of the large piece of farm land properly described as the land bounded to the NORTH, families’ land of Stephen Odbgori, I shaku Ojubu, Bako Gini, Saidu Wunuji, Yusuf Mohammed and Buba Zoguri; to the East, families’ land of Kefas Danladi, Eziekiel Aten and Samuel Danladi, to the SOUTH, families’ land of Maiangwa Idi Wambai, Yakubu Wunuji and Bauro Ajiduku; to the West, families’ land of Kaduna Adda, Dio Tsokwa and Baia Abe and inside, families’ land of Danladi Obadiah, Dan’azumi Maijidadi (Telia), Denis Ali, Sabo Ephraim, Dankini Angyu and Kaduna Adda, the said huge farm land jointly and severally lying and situate at Mambya (Gidin Dutse) off Dorowa, Wukari Local Government Area, Taraba State.
2. A perpetual injunction restraining the defendants jointly and severally whether by themselves, their agents, servants, etc., or others howsoever claim through, by, for and on their behalf from trespassing or further trespassing into the plaintiffs’ land and/or howsoever dealing with the plaintiffs’ land in a manner inconsistent with the plaintiffs’ right, interest in or in title thereto.
3. The sum of one million naira (N1,000,000.00) only as cost of filing and prosecuting this suit.
4. Ten million naira (N10,000,000.00) only, as general damages.

The appellants’ case was that the 1st respondent had approached them for permission to plant palm trees and set up an oil palm plantation and processing facilities on their lands, with the promise that they would get employment opportunities in the said venture.

The agreement was that though the 1st respondent would plant the palm trees, the appellants would still retain ownership of their lands and continue to intercrop and cultivate other crops on the land. And for this, the appellants state that the 1st respondent compensated them for the use of their land with some monetary gift. This agreement was in 2005.

Years down the line when this palm plantation project failed, the appellants claim that the 1st respondent then gave this farmland to the 2nd to 6th respondents who are his agents to be farming thereon, despite the appellants demanding the return of their lands to them in accordance with their original agreement.

The failure of the defendants to surrender this land to the appellants prompted the appellants to ask their solicitor to write a formal letter of demand to the respondents. This letter was admitted in evidence as exhibit P1. It was the failure of this letter to achieve the desired result that caused the appellants to take out the writ against the respondents.

The respondents while not denying that the appellants had original radical title to the lands, contended instead that the lands had been acquired by the 1st respondent, and that this was evidenced by an agreement between the 1st respondent and the appellants. This document was admitted in evidence as exhibit D1.

Pleadings were filed and exchanged. At trial, the appellants called two (2) witnesses (PW1 – PW2) while the respondents also called two (2) witnesses (DW1 – DW2). Upon the close of the parties’ respective cases, final addresses of counsel were filed and adopted on 22/07/22 with the matter then adjourned for judgment.

The trial court finally in its judgment delivered on 09/01/23 dismissed the claim of the appellants upon consideration of the evidence and case of the parties, while upholding the defence of the respondents that they are the owners of the lands by acquisition. See pages 134 – 172 of the record of appeal.