Yiola Maskala Vs Dimbriwe Silli (2002)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

M. A. BELGORE, J.S.C.

The appellant was the plaintiff at the court of first instance, the Area Court sitting at Shelleng in the former Gongola State (now Adamawa State.) The claim was for a piece of farmland on which the respondent as defendant was farming. Yiola Maskala as plaintiff deemed the farmland as his own and called four witnesses. But looking at what he claimed before the Civil Area Court at Shelleng, the claim is as follows:-

“The farm belongs to my senior brother, which he gave to Yasokena. Then I went and asked of it from our ward elders; there the defendant said he is going to show me the land.

But later when we reached home he refused to do so….”

The case of the appellant as plaintiff was hardly more than what is quoted above. The respondent as defendant denied knowing any person by the name Yasokena. The respondent claimed to have been on the land for over fifty years and that it was given to him by one Salami who had died and that it was Jauro i.e. ward head, who was in charge of the land to give out to various people. Apart from the bland statement of the appellant, his witnesses did not help his case. His first witness, Tikilius only said:-

‘The farm belongs to Yoila’s brother, Ngogulo, by the time Ngogulo died the farm was given to Milemo. There was a misunderstanding which took place so Milemo gave out this farm to Surubel, then later to Yachumun. After some time, Yoila’s brother learnt that the farm is with Kantile. “The second witness for the plaintiff never helped the confusing situation of the case either, as he never clearly stated who gave the land to the appellant and defendant refused to leave the land. Other witnesses testified but one of them clearly stated how the appellant’s claim arose. Was it by inheritance or as a gift At the end of all evidence before the trial court, the area court Judge found the case of the plaintiff not proved. He found on preponderance of evidence that it was the respondent, Dimbiruce, who had been on the land for about fifty years; he took over from his dead uncle Jelimbes. The court also found that nobody had ever seen the appellant farming on the disputed land and the respondent had been on it for about fifty years. The appellant never offered any evidence of how he came by the claim. The appellant lost at the trial court.

Dissatisfied with trial civil area court’s decision, the appellant appealed to Upper Area Court which found nothing wrong with the decision of the trial court and dismissed the appeal. This led to the appeal to the High Court.

The High Court reviewed the evidence of witnesses at the trial court by setting out in summary form what each witness said. It was the opinion of the High Court that long possession might have influenced trial court and the Upper Area Court in arriving at their decisions. It dwelt on the possibility of rent or loan of the land, which was not an issue in any of the two lower Area Courts. It finally concluded: “Under traditional system of ownership of land, any land “loaned” out or rented out to another remains so no matter how long the tenant remained tilling the land.” and therefore allowed the appeal and set aside the decision of Upper Area Court which upheld trial court’s decision. This led to appeal to Court of Appeal, Jos Division. Court of Appeal, based on the issues before it, found merit in the appeal and set aside the decision of the High Court and restored the decision of the Upper Area Court. While agreeing that long possession simpliciter will not confer title on land, it is some evidence at least of possession and to defeat any claim for title not proved. (Nwosu v. Udeaja (1990) 1 SCNJ 152; (1990) 1 NWLR (Pt.125) 188; Ogbechie & Ors. v. Onochie & Ors. (1988) 1 NWLR (Pt.70) 370; ldundun v. Okumagba (1969) 1 All NLR 281); (1976) 9-10 SC 227. It found that on the entire evidence before the courts below the plaintiff (now appellant) never established any link or even possession to the land in dispute. It found the High Court erred in reversing the decision of trial court which was upheld by the Upper Area Court as it was clear on the record that the appellant as plaintiff never proved his claim. It found that the witnesses for the plaintiff were even not consistent in their various evidence on how the land devolved on the appellant (plaintiff). It therefore allowed the appeal.

The appeal to this court is based on two grounds, the original ground and one additional ground, to wit:-

Original ground; “The judgment of the Court of Appeal amounted to a nullity in that the trial area court whose decision it restored and confirmed was not properly constituted when it heard and determined the cases, particulars:

Contrary to the provisions of s. 4(3)(b) of the Area Courts Edict, 1968 applicable to Gongola State as it then used to be, only one Judge sat and heard the case at the Civil Area Court, Shelleng.”

Additional ground:

The proceedings as well as the judgment of the Court of Appeal amounted to a nullity in that there was no competent appeal before the said court.

Particulars