Usman A. Mahmoud V. Usman Ahmad & Ors (2014)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

ABDU ABOKI, J.C.A. (Delivering the leading Judgment)

This is an appeal against the judgment of the Kano State High Court of Justice delivered on 22nd March, 2012 by Justice Ahmed T. Badamasi.

A summary of facts of the case that lead to this appeal is that the 1st Respondent who is the plaintiff at the lower Court claimed as per writ of summons dated 25/02/2004 against the Appellant and the 2nd, 3rd and 4th Respondents who were the 2nd, 3rd and 4th defendants at the lower Court as follows:

1. A declaration that the 1st defendant act of going into or fencing about 10 meters into the plaintiff’s plot No. 902, covered by the Kano State Certificate of Occupancy No. LKN/RES/93/5083 is illegal, null and void.
2. A declaration that the purported allocation paper No. KSHC/PL/S&S/97/902 or any other title documents issued to the 1st defendant thereof are null and void whatsoever.
3. An order setting aside the purported Kano state housing corporation allocation paper No. KSC/PL/S&S/97/900 and or KSHC/PL/S&S/97/900 or any officer title document for being illegal, null and void.
4. An order directing the 1st defendant to demolish the fence wrongfully erected on the plaintiffs aid plot No. 902.
5. An order of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants, their servants, agents, heirs, privies and or assigns from intimidating, harassing, trespassing and or in any way disturbing the plaintiff’s title and possession thereof.
6. N1,000,000.00 (One million naira) only damages for trespass.
7. Cost of this action.

The Appellant at the lower Court filed a statement of defence and counter claim against the claim of the plaintiff as follows:

1. An order that the 1st defendant/counter claimant is entitled to the property in dispute namely plot No. 902 and covered by certificate of occupancy, No. LKN/RES/2004/133.
2. An order that the 1st defendant/counter claimant is entitled to the property situate at plot No. 902 and covered by certificate of occupancy No. LKN/RES/2004/133 as against the whole world.
3. An order directing the Commissioner of Police Kano State command to investigate the issue of forgery and fraud raised in the pleading and evidence of the 1st defendant counter claimant with the view to prosecuting those involved in the forgery.
4. The sum of N3,000,000.00 (three million naira) as general damages for trespass to the land in dispute by the plaintiff.
5. An order for perpetual injunction restraining the plaintiff, by himself his servants, workmen and agents or otherwise however
6. An order that the certificate of occupancy No. LKN/RES/2004/133 issued to the 1st defendant in respect of the land in dispute is valid and subsisting.
7. An order that the purported certificate of occupancy No. LKN/RES/2004/133 is illegal, unlawful, void and of no effect having not been issued by the then Executive Governor of Kano State Alhaji Kabiru Ibrahim Gaya.
8. Cost of this action.

At the close of the pleadings, parties called witnesses to prove their case. The plaintiff gave evidence in support of his case, so also the 1st defendant; while the other defendants called only one witness.

At the end, judgment was entered on the 22/03/2012 in favour of the plaintiff against the defendants as follows:

“On the whole I hold that the plaintiff has on the balance of probabilities established his case to warrant entering judgment in his favour consequently judgment is hereby made for the plaintiff against the defendants in the following manner:

1. A declaration is hereby made that the plaintiff is the rightful owner of the plot No. LKN/RES/93/5083.
2. The encroachment of the said land by the 1st defendant is hereby declared illegal, null and void.
3. All the title documents issued to the 1st defendant by the 4th defendant are hereby declared illegal, null and void.”

Dissatisfied with the decision of the trial Court, the Appellant by a notice of appeal dated and filed 26/03/2012 appealed to this honourable Court. Pursuant to the order of this honourable Court made on the 25/06/2013 the Appellant was granted leave to amend his notice of appeal. The amended notice of appeal dated 13/05/2013 contained 12 grounds. The 12 grounds of appeal without their particulars read as follows:

“GROUND ONE

The learned trial judge erred in law when he held that the title documents namely the letter of grant and the certificate of occupancy No. LKN/RES/93/5085 (exhibits A and B) are valid and genuine documents.

GROUND TWO

The learned trial judge erred and refused to be bound by the Supreme Court decision AGBOOLA v. UBA PLC (2011) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1258) 375 and KYARI v. ALKALI (2001) 11 NWLR (Pt. 724) 412 to the effect that mere production of a document of title over a piece of land does not automatically entitle a party to title to the land.Courts & Judiciary

GROUND THREE

The learned trial judge erred in law in granting the reliefs sought by the 1st Respondent when there is uncontroverted evidence that the issuance of the title deeds to the Respondent did not follow due process.