Yohanna Nyawen V. Jauro Mago Badon & Ors (2016)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

JUMMAI HANNATU SANKEY, J.C.A.

This is an Appeal against the Judgment of the High Court of Justice Taraba State sitting at Jalingo, delivered on the 2nd day of December, 2013 in suit number TRJS/42/2012, wherein the trial Court declared title to the land in dispute to the Respondents. The Appellant being dissatisfied with the Judgment sought and obtained the leave of this Court to file an Appeal.

The pithy statement of the facts of the case is that, the Respondents, (as Plaintiffs before the trial Court), by a motion ex parte filed on 18-04-2012 sought the leave of Court to file an action in a representative capacity against the Defendant (now Appellant). Leave was duly granted on 04-06-2012, where after, the Plaintiffs took out a Writ of summons against the Appellant, (as Defendant) on 13th June, 2012 on 13th June, 2012. Therein, they claimed the following reliefs:
?1. ?A DECLARATION that the Plaintiffs are entitled to a statutory right of occupancy in respect of the parcel of land lying and situate at Golong Village in Kona District, in Jalingo Local Government Area of Taraba State

1

which is particularly boarded (sic) by the lands of the followings (sic); to the north is the land of Ifraimu Aji, to the South the land of Clement Maizo, to the east are Ifraimu Aji and Batare and to the west is Yohanna Nyawen.
2. A DECLARATION that the purported sale of the piece of land described above or any part thereof by the Defendant to any person or group of persons, is illegal, null and void and of no effect whatsoever.
3. A DECLARATION that the Defendant is a trespasser.
4. An Order of injunction restraining the Defendant by himself or through him from further act of trespass over the land in dispute described in 1 above.
5. The sum of five hundred thousand naira (N500, 000.00) as general damages for trespass.
6. Cost of filling and prosecuting this suit.?

Parties filed and exchanged pleadings. Subsequently, the Plaintiffs sought and obtained the leave of Court to amend their Statement of claim, after which the matter proceeded to full trial. In proof of the claim, the Plaintiffs called four witnesses and tendered one exhibit, while the Defendant called four witnesses and tendered no exhibit.
?
In order to

2

establish their claim of title to the land in dispute, both the Plaintiffs and the Defendant relied on traditional history. The trial Court, after considering the evidence on either side, found in favour of the Plaintiffs and declared title to the land in dispute to them. The Judgment of the Court was delivered on 2nd December, 2013. The Defendant aggrieved, filed this Appeal on the 18th June, 2016, wherein he complained on eight grounds.
When the Appeal was called up for hearing on the 12-04-16, D. O Ovoyenta Esq., learned Counsel for the Appellant, adopted and relied on the Appellant?s Brief of argument filed on 28-10-15 as the Appellant?s arguments in the Appeal. He prayed the Court to allow the appeal, set aside the Judgment of the trial Court and enter an order of dismissal of the Plaintiffs? claim before the trial Court. In like vein, E.D. Kizito Esq., learned Counsel for the 1st-3rd Respondents, adopted and relied on the 1st-3rd Respondents? Joint Brief of argument filed on 08-03-16 as the 1st-3rd Respondents? arguments in the Appeal. He prayed the Court to dismiss the Appeal for lacking in merit and affirm the

3

Judgment of the trial Court.

In the respective Briefs of argument, whereas learned Counsel for the Appellant formulated four issues for determination from his eight Grounds of Appeal, the Respondent distilled three issues. The issues framed by the Appellant are as follows:
1. Whether the trial Court was right when it declared title to the land in dispute to the Respondents and proceeded to issue an order of permanent injunction against the Appellant even though the Respondents did not discharge the onus of proof of the extent and boundaries of the land in dispute. (Grounds 1 and 7)
2. Whether the trial Court was right in law when, after finding that the traditional history relied upon by the Respondents was contradictory and conflicting, yet proceeded to declare title to the Respondents based on the demeanor of witnesses. (Grounds 2 and 3)
3. Whether the trial Court was right in declaring title to the Respondents when the evidence before it disclosed that the Appellant and his relatives are in possession and have exercised numerous acts of ownership on the land. (Grounds 4 and 6)
4. Whether the trial Court?s finding that the

4

facts averred in paragraphs 5, 12, 13, 15 and 17 of the Statement of claim were proved by the Respondents at the locus visit is not perverse. (Grounds 5 and 8)

While the issues distilled by the Respondents are:
1. Whether based on the evidence before the trial Court, the Plaintiffs (now Respondents) discharged the burden of proof in establishing the extent and boundaries of the land in dispute (Grounds 1 and 7).
2. Whether the Appellant/Defendant was in possession and exercised acts of possession over the land in dispute (Grounds 4 and 6)
3. Whether by the balance of probabilities, the trial Court was right to have declared title to the land in dispute in favour of the Plaintiffs (now Respondents) (Grounds 2, 3, 5 and 8).