The Commissioner Of Police, Borno State & Anor V. Ibrahim Abba Umar & Ors (2016)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

JOSEPH TINE TUR, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

The respondents instituted this action against the appellants before the High Court of Justice of Borno State holden at Maiduguri on 2nd July, 1997. The suit was contested on pleadings.

Pleadings constitute a notice of what the parties intend to canvass at the trial. See Uwegba vs. Attorney-General of Bendel State (1986) NWLR (Pt.16) 303 at 317 and Obmiami Brick and Stones Nig. Ltd. vs. ACB Ltd. (1992) 3 SCNJ 1 at 35. At the close and exchange of pleadings, the respondents traced their title to the disputed land to Goni Aji his grand father who was first to clear the land and settle on it for about 20 years before his death around 1905.

Thereafter Abdul Kudus, their father inherited the farmland and continued in occupation undisturbed till his death in 1969. The respondents and Baba Gana inherited the land and continued possession till Baba Gana died in 1978. The respondents continued in possession till they excised part of the land and gave to Police Officers??? wives to establish the Mammy Market now the subject of dispute. Police

1

Officers had been paying rent to the respondents until this dispute arose with the appellants compulsory annexation of the land on which Mammy Market is situate.

Paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Statement of Claim pleaded as follows:

“1. The plaintiffs are brothers and are the children of Abdul Kudus who died in 1969.

2. The land which is the subject-matter of this suit is situated at Wulari Ward within Maiduguri Metropolitan area and the said piece of land is now generally referred to as Mammy Market measuring 82 metres and 92 metres by 30 metres, by 35 metres.

Paragraphs 1-2 and 9 of the statement of defence pleaded as follows:

1. The defendants deny paragraph 1 of the statement of claim and put the plaintiffs to the strictest proof thereof.
2. The defendants partly admitted paragraph 2 of the statement claim.
3. That the land in dispute form part and parcel of the police land which was acquired for the both (sic) Residential and Recreational Certificate (sic) for the Police.

What is admitted needs no further proof at the trial. See Andony vs. Ayi II & Ors. (2004)

2

All FWLR (Pt.227) 444 at 482 and Ebueku vs. Amola (1988) 3 SCNJ (Pt.2) 207 at 224.

The land in dispute is well known to the parties. It is simply described as Mammy Market in the pleadings. The land in dispute means the land being claimed by a party and disputed by his opponent or adversary. See Akintola vs. Solano (1986) 2 NWLR (Pt.24) 598 at 622. Such land may be surrounded by other lands not in dispute. See Kuma vs. Kuma (1936) 5 WACA 4 and Ajadi vs. Olanrewaju (1969) 1 All NLR 382 at 386.

Paragraphs 7-16 of the statement of claim pleaded the facts that led to the dispute as follows: