1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE FEDERAL CAPITAL TERRITORY,

IN THE WUSE JUDICIAL DIVISION,

HOLDEN AT COURT NO. 18,

JABI, ABUJA.

BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP: HON. JUSTICE O.A. MUSA.

Suit No. /CV/596/2013

BETWEEN:

1. JUBRIL AGABA

AND

1. DIKKO MOSES

2. APATA ISHAKA

DATE: 23rd March, 2016.

JUDGMENT

The Plaintiff, Joshua Agaba, later substituted with Jubril Agaba instituted this

action against the Defendant via a Writ of Summons, and Statement of

Claim dated the 20th day of September, 1999. The Plaintiff’s claim as per

paragraph 27 of his amended Statement of Claim filed on the 14th day of

April, 2003 are as follows;

a. A Declaration that, the plaintiff is the owner and or the only person

that, was at all times material to this suit entitled to the right of

occupancy or the right to use and occupation for the piece and

parcel of land measuring approximately 3920 sq. meters, and lying

and situate in between Abuja – Keffi Road, and Nyanay Karu road,

Nyanya in the Abuja Municipal Area Council of the Federal Capital

Territory, Abuja, Nigeria and which said piece and parcel of land

previously had one single room apartment and another building

made up of four rooms in it before the creation of the Federal Capital

Territory, Abuja.

b. A Declaration that, the Defendant by entering into Plaintiff’s piece

and parcel of land aforesaid and erecting buildings in same without

Plaintiff’s consent or approval are trespass.

DEFENDANTS / APPLICANTS

PLAINTIFF / RESPONDENT

2

c. A Declaration that based on the maxim quicquid plantatur solo solo

cedit the Plaintiff is the legitimate owner of the building illegally

erected on his said piece and parcel of land by the Defendants.

d. A Declaration that, the Plaintiff is the person that is entitled to

compensation due in respect of structures situate on the piece and

parcel of land subject matter of this suit from the Federal Ministry of

works and Housing or any other person or authority.

e. An order directing the 2nd Defendant to pay the sum of N25, 364,

120.00 (Twenty – Five Million, Three Hundred and Sixty – Four Thousand,

One Hundred and Twenty Naira) only, and any other sum of money

whatsoever, which he has received from the Federal Ministry of Works

and Housing or her agent Lechez Consultants Limited as

compensation due in respect of the structures that are situate on the

said piece and parcel of land, to the Plaintiff.

f. An Order directing the 2nd Defendant to pay over any sums of money

that he have received in any name whatsoever as compensation due

in respect of structures that are situate on the said piece and parcel

of land from Federal Ministry of Works and Housing or her agent

Lechez Consultants Limited to the Plaintiff

g. The sum of N5, 000, 000.00 (Five Million Naira) only as general

damages for trespass, (sic).

The learned counsel to the plaintiff, at the hearing of the matter, the Plaintiff

called four (4) witnesses, i.e. Mr. Augustine Tanze (the Plaintiff himself),

(PW1), Mr. Simon Nnagbolu (PW2), who was given the Power of Attorney by

the Plaintiff regarding the piece and parcel of land subject matter of this

suit, Mrs. Jumai Danjuma Robo (PW3), who is the younger sister to one

Usman, who also owns a piece of land that has boundaries with the

disputed land and Mr. Subpoened Federal Ministry of Works and Housing,

represented by Mr. Yakubu Mohammed.

The Plaintiff (PW1) tendered seven (7) Exhibits, which were admitted and

marked as Exhibits ‘A1’ - ‘A7’. Exhibits ‘A1’, to ‘A6’ tendered through Mr.

Yakubu Mohammed of the Federal Ministry of works and Housing were the

indemnity certificates for the payment of compensation to the claimants

3

during the construction of Abuja Nyanya Keffi Road project and the said

Exhibits were from the archives of the Federal Ministry of Works and Housing,

while Exhibit ‘A7’, was the Power of Attorney executed between late

Jushua Agaba (Father of Jubril Agaba), and Mr. Simeon Nnagbolu.

Issues were joined and the Defendant called two (2) witnesses, Dauda

Knudowan DW1 (the 1st Defendant) and Christopher Omeh DW2 (The 2nd

Defendant). The Defendant tendered four (4) Exhibits, which were admitted

and marked as Exhibits ‘D1’ – ‘D4’, respectively. Exhibit ‘D1’, was a

purported judgment of Grade 1 Area Court, Karu – Abuja, in 1993, Exhbit

‘A2’ was the purported receipt/agreement dated the 5th day of January,

1982, Exhibit ‘D3’ was the Certified True Copy of the Certificate of

occupancy with Reference Number MZPT/539, dated the 23rd day of

March, 1993.

Exhibit ‘D4’ was evidence of payment of the sum of N7, 215, 250.00 to the

2nd Defendant by Lechez Consultants as agent of the Federal Ministry of

Works and Housing, the company charged with the responsibility of

disbursing compensation funds to beneficiaries as at the time.

In his final written address, learned counsel to the Plaintiff, raised four (4)

issues for determination, as follows,

1. Whether the Plaintiff has discharged the onus placed on him as

Plaintiff in respect of the land in dispute so as to warrant the grant of

the declarations sought by him?

2. Prior to the creation of the Federal Capital Territory, between the

Plaintiff and the Defendants who was in possession and had a better

title to the land in dispute?

3. Whether the original source of title is invalid, whether the acquisition of

a Certificate of occupancy can confer title to a party as against a

person who had a better title?

4. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to the compensation paid in respect of

the land subject matter of this suit and structures therein?

In arguing these issues, learned Plaintiff’s counsel submitted on issue one,

which is, ‘Whether the Plaintiff has discharged the onus placed on him as

Plaintiff in respect of the land in dispute so as to warrant the grant of the

4

declarations sought by him?’ that, the burden of proof lies on the Plaintiff in

the first instance who may prove his claim for declaration of title in any of

the five under listed ways as decided in the celebrated case of IDUNUN Vs.

OKUMAGBA (19760 9 – 10 S. C. Vis

a. By traditional history,

b. By production of document of title,

c. By virtue acts of ownership over a sufficient length of time numerous

and positive enough as to warrant inference that the person is the true

owner,

d. By acts of long possession, and

e. By proof of possession of connected or adjacent land in circumstances

rendering it probable that, the owner of the land in dispute.

Counsel submitted that, in this respect, the Plaintiff in discharging this

burden called four (4) witnesses. He added that, PW 1, who is the Plaintiff

gave clear, vivid and uncontroverted account of how his late father (Jubril

Agaba) who started this case acquired the piece and parcel of land

subject matter of this suit from the Chief of KARU as an outright gift.

Counsel submitted that, the PW1 gave evidence that, the piece and parcel

of land given to his father by way outright gift by the Chief of Karu was a

large expanse of land lying along Kaffi Road. He stated that, according to

him, the land was given to his father and other staff of the Federal Ministry

of Works who were working under the Road maintenance unit while residing

at Nyanya, which was then in Benue/Plateau State ever before the creation

of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja in 1976.

It was counsel further submission, that the Plaintiff prove possession by giving

evidence on how his late father built on his own portion of the land, a round

house and four (4) rooms and continued farming on remaining portion.

Equally, submitted that, the evidence of the Plaintiff was that, there were

other persons involved in sharing of the large expanse of land given as an

outright gift by the Chief of Karu, which includes Mr. Usman, also a co –

worker of the Plaintiff’s father at the Federal Ministry of Works and one Musa

Magaji, who was also given a portion.

5

More so, counsel added that, the Plaintiff’s evidence was that, the 1st

Defendant (Dauda Knudowan) though a worker of the Federal Ministry of

Works was not working with Plaintiff’s father (Joshua Agaba), Mr. Usman and

Musa Magaji and was not part of the sharing of the outright gift by Chief of

Karu because he was working elsewhere.

He contended that, the evidence of Plaintiff’s witness especially PW4 –

Musa Magaji, which was corroborated by other witnesses was that, it was

one Manasseh, the 1st Defendant’s brother who had boundary with them,

(i.e. Joshua Agaba, Mr. Usman and Musa Magaji) and it was the said

Manasseh that gave 1st Defendant where he built having returned from

service.

He maintained that, the clear, vivid and corroborated and uncontradicted

evidence before this court was that, 1st Defendant (Dauda Knudowan)

offered to buy the portion of land belonging to Usman but could not and

this laid to the said portion of land belonging being subsequently sold to Mr.

Simeon Nnagbolu (PW2) by Mr. Usman’s brother – in – law, Danjuma Robo,

the husband of Usman’s sister, Jumai Robo, one of the witnesses for the

Plaintiff in this case.

He also maintained that, evidence before the court is to the effect that, Mr.

Dauda Knudowan (1st Defendant) had sued Danjuma Robo, late Usman’s

brother – in – law and Jumai’s husband, Mr. Danjuma Tanze and Mr. Simeon

Nnagbolu in court at several times over the piece and parcel of land in

dispute but lost out in all the suits.

Counsel submitted that, the evidence of the outright gift of the land in

dispute to the plaintiff’s father by the Chief of Karu was corroborated by the

PW2, PW3, and PW4. He said that, the Defendant also admitted the

plaintiff’s evidence that plaintiff came into occupation of the disputed land

through the Chief of Karu and that, the 1st Defendant was on service

elsewhere (working at Makurdi). Counsel referred the court to paragraphs

3f, and g of the Further Amended Statement of Defence.

6

Learned counsel to the Plaintiff in his submission contended that, assuming

the disputed land belongs to the 1st Defendant, as well as the large

expanse shared by Usman and Musa Magaji, he would not have been

standing by and watching the portions of land being sold to others by Musa

Magaji and Usman’s relatives. It was his contention also that, if the land in

dispute, which formed a part of a large portion given by the Chief of Karu

belongs to the 1st Defendant, he would not have been negotiating to buy

what belongs to him from Late Usman’s family. On the doctrine of standing

by, counsel referred the court to the case of OKORIE UWAIS AKA & ORSVS.

NGWULIAKIS AGBA & ORS (1955) 15 WACA 63.

On this leg, counsel submitted that, upon the above evidence before the

court, Plaintiff has clearly discharged the burden placed on him by showing

the source of his title which was admitted by the Defendants and therefore

need not show further proof, especially upon the said admission.

In another breath, counsel submitted that, Plaintiff has further discharged

this burden by giving clear account of long possession and various act of

ownership over a sufficient length of time. That the Plaintiff proved his case

also by calling on persons who own adjoining lands around the disputed

land who corroborated Plaintiff’s evidence.

Counsel maintained therefore, that, the Plaintiff has discharged the burden

of proof place on him. And stated that, having discharged this burden, the

burden therefore shifts to the Defendants who admitted that, the land was

given to the Plaintiff by the Chief of Karu, but because according to him,

the land originally belong to his maternal uncle named Yelenu and

Wisaniyiya, who were the first to farm on the disputed land. It is his assertion

that his maternal uncle gave the land to his father due to his father’s

marriage to his mother and that, he (1st Defendant) came into the land with

the consent of the Chief of Nyanya and his father.

Furthermore, counsel state that, 1st Defendant did not explain to the court

why he needed the consent of the Chief of Nyanya to use the land as

poultry. He contended that, the fact is no other fact that, the Chiefs were

the custodians of the people’s land.

7

In furtherance, counsel submitted that, 1st Defendant having admitted

Plaintiff’s source of title, the onus therefore shifts on him to prove that even

though the Chief of Karu gave them the land, that, it was by his consent

and that, Chief of Karu did not have title over same. Counsel referred he

court to the case of MADUMMA VS. JAMBO (2001) 15 NWLR (Pt. 736) at pg.

461, particularly at Pg. 476, para C – E, p, 472 – 478, paras H – B.

It was also counsel’s submission that, unfortunately, aside from the account

of the DW1 who is the 1st Defendant, no other witness was called by him to

corroborate his evidence and or to contradict the evidence of the Plaintiff,

which is clear and vivid. He urged the court to grant all the declarations of

the Plaintiff having proved his case with uncontroverted evidence.

Counsel to the Plaintiff goes further to say that, the Plaintiff in trying to bring

all the facts relevant for the just determination of this case upon a Motion

on Notice, dated the 15th day of April, 2001, but filed on the 290th day of

June, 2011, prayed this court for leave to further amend his Amended

Statement of Claim by adding new paragraphs (11a), (11b), (19a), and

(19b) in terms of the under listed portion of the further Amended Statement

of Claim attached to the affidavit in support of the application. The

underlisted paragraphs sought to be amended reads thus

(11a) the Plaintiff avers that another member of the Road maintenance Unit

of the Federal Ministry of Works and Housing, Mr. Usman had a share in

the piece and parcel of land given by the Chief of Karu, bout when he

died, his sister Jumai who was then married to Danjuama Robo

inherited the land and building therein,

(11b) the Plaintiff averts that, the 1st Defendant in the year 1990 sued

Danjuama Robo also known as Danjuma Karu at the Area Court Grade

1, Karu, Abuja, in respect of the piece and parcel of land and building

therein, which his wife Jumai inherited from her late brother, Usman and

lost at the trial court, Plaintiff pleads and will rely on the Certified Trued

Copy of the Record of proceedings of the trial Area Court at the trial of

this suit,

8

(19a) the Plaintiff averts that sometime in the year 1993, the 1st Defendant

sued his father’s Attorney, Mr. Simeon Nnagbolu, at the Grade 1 Area

Court, Jiwa over the piece and parcel of land subject matter of this

suit, but the suit was struck out on the 18th day of march, 1994 due to

lack of diligent prosecution. The plaintiff pleads and will rely on the

Certified True Copy of the Record of Proceedings in case No.

CV/168/93 at the trial of this suit.

(19b) the plaintiff averts that, after the Grade 1 Area Court, Karu, Abuja struck

out the suit, that, the 1st Defendant instituted against his father’s Attorney

over the piece and parcel of land subject matter of this suit, he

commenced another action at the High Court of Justice, Abuja against

his father’s Attorney and Abuja Municipal Area Council over the same

parcel of land. This suit which has its Suit No. as FCT/HC/CV/313/95 was

dismissed on the 12th day of May, 1998 due to lack of diligent

prosecution. Plaintiff pleads and will rely on the Certified True Copy of

the Court Ruling, dated the 12th day of May, 1998 at the trial.

He submitted that, the Honourable Court on the 26th day of January, 2012

heard and refused Plaintiff’s application to Further amend his claim by

inserting the above under listed paragraphs on a single fact that, granting

same will lead to delay in this case even though granting same would have

helped in the just determination of this case as the evidence of PW1, PW2,

PW3, and PW4 on oath and under cross – examination.

He stated that, the Plaintiff clearly placed these facts before the court and

since the Defendants have not opened their defence and therefore would

never have been prejudiced since they had opportunities to rebuff same

during their defence the refusal of this application will lead to a miscarriage

of justice against the Plaintiff.

He contended that, in the court’s wisdom, having refused the amendment

of the pleading, he was of the opinion the judicial decisions sort to be

pleaded and placed before this court are still relevant to this case. Counsel

submitted that, Plaintiff’s witnesses in their evidence having placed these

facts before the court both on Written Statement on Oath and cross –

examination, the court is enjoined to look at and consider the judicial

decisions in this case.

9

He further maintained that, statutes or legal results such as judgments of

courts are not facts, which must be specifically pleaded before the court

may consider same. The parties can present or merely state the material

facts as in this case and present in argument the legal results without

pleading same. He said, courts are enjoined to take judicial notice of the

decisions of another court and such judicial decisions in effect becomes

law.

Learned counsel submitted that, he should discharge his burden either by

producing the bank teller that he paid in the given account or producing a

receipt give to him by the Plaintiff or adducing any other admissible

evidence, oral or documentary establishing that, he had paid his arrears of

rent of over three years.

Again, counsel submitted that, the PW1, PW2, PW3, and PW4 having in their

evidence on oath and cross examination informed this courts of decisions of

courts against the Defendants, this court is enjoined to consider this

decisions even though not specifically pleaded. In this regard, counsel

referred the court to the cases of REVANDERVELL’S TRUST (NO. 2), WHITE Vs.

VANDERVELL TRUST LIMITED (1974) ALL ER 205 and ANYANWU Vs. MBARA (1992)

5 NWLR (Pt. 242) Pg. 386 @ 389 ration 1 ESP at Pg. 13, paras A – C.

Counsel urged the court to consider the unreported case of DAUDA

KNUDOWAN Vs. DANJUMA KARU, SUIT NO CV/51/90, which judgment was

delivered by Musa D. Abubakar (Judge) with M. Abubakar Gamu (Alkali

member) on the 5th day of June, 1990 against the 1st Defendant in this case

and which part of the judgment reads, thus;

“This is a case in which the Plaintiff brought the Defendant that he was

the person who owns the land in which one late Usman build, he added

that, he borrowed the purported land to that late Usman but the

Defendant who is not known to him as a heir to the deceased person

sold the land to some body as such he wanted to collect his land back

to him….

10

One DW1 Bako Karu after affirmation and said he knew the place in

dispute belong to late Usman, they have been visiting him when he was

alive. So the only question and answer of DW2 is enough to convince the

court that, the place does not belong to Dauda at all, if he is the owner,

he won’t allowed selling of the building and also priced it and later he

part payment is to be made for the selling the Defendant and the rest

should get him informed due to the above mention fact, the purported

building is proved to be for late Usman, whose beneficiaries are supposed

to inherit it ….. The court passes its judgment in favour of the Defendant.

The Plaintiff has no hand over the building that is the judgment. ”

Counsel relied on the on the Certified True Copy of the said unreported

judgment and urged the court to hold in line with the decision in DAUDA

KNUWODAN Vs. DANJUMA KARU (SUPRA), which borders on the same large

piece of land which includes the land subject matter of this suit, which was

given to Mr. Usman and Plaintiff’s father that the land subject matter of this

case does not belong to the 1st Defendant and as such, he does not have

the right to transfer same to the 2nd Defendant.

The learned counsel contended that, the unreported case of DAUDA

KNUDOWAN Vs. ABUJA MUNICIPAL AREA COUNCIL & MR. SIMEON NNGBOLU,

Suit No. FCT/HC/CV/313/95, which said case was a case instituted against

AMAC and the PW2 (Mr. Simeon Nnagbolu) by the 1st Defendant in this case

over the same land subject matter of this suit. Counsel submitted that, this

suit was dismissed by Dangben Mensen J. (as she then was) against the 1st

Defendant in this case on the 12th day of May 1998, with award of cost

against him. Counsel referred the court to the Certified True Copy of the

said Ruling of the unreported case.

Counsel submitted that, the unreported case of Area Court of the Federal

Capital Territory between DAUDA KNUDOWAN of NYANYA Vs. SIMEON

NNAGBOLU, SUIT NO. CV/168/93, which is a case of claim involving the land

subject matter in this suit by the 1st Defendant against PW2 (Simeon

NNagbolu.) He stated that, the case which was struck out against Dauda

Knudowan (1st Defendant) in this case and cost awarded against him on

the 18th day of March, 1994. Counsel referred the court to the Certified True

Copy of the Ruling for court’s consideration.

11

In this regards, counsel urged the court to hold that, upon the authority of

the decided cases between the parties, which are now made available to

this court, these decisions operated as law against the Defendants in this

case and in favour of the plaintiff to the effect that Defendants are

trespasser and therefore Plaintiff have discharged the burden of proof

placed on him and is entitled to the reliefs sought by him.

It was counsel’s further submission that, the Defendant in this case upon the

motion on Notice, dated the 10th day of October, 2006, and filed on the

same date specifically prayed this court to amend their joint Statement of

defence by inserting or adding paragraph 4(a) immediately after

paragraph (4) thereof as set out in the schedule thereto, thus,

“2nd Defendant avers that, having been put in possession of the land by 1st

Defendant, he located overseer Tanze and bought over his native grass

houses of three rooms and one stores for N8, 000.00 (Eight Hundred Naira)

only, receipted of which he acknowledge vide a written evidence of

transaction, dated the 5th day of January, 1982. The said

acknowledgment/receipt per that transaction is hereby pleaded.”

Counsel argued that, the failure of the Defendant to call Joshua Agaba’s

wife and any other person that, purportedly witness the transaction of 1982

means that, if they are called they will give evidence that will be adverse to

their case. Counsel place reliance on the case of ODUCHE Vs. ODUCHE

(2006) NWLR (Pt. 972) at Pg. 012 ESP at 120 paras D – E.

In the same vein, he argued that, the sale receipt / agreement is not

admissible for non – registration and therefore should be expunged or in the

alternative that, no weight be attached to same.

Further, counsel submitted that, Exhibit ‘D4’, tendered by 2nd Defendant to

show that, he was paid only N7, 215, 250.00 (Seven Million, Two Hundred

and Fifteen Thousand, Two hundred and Fifty thousand naira) only, should

be considered alongside Exhibit ‘A1’, to ‘A6’, tendered by Mr. Yakubu

Mohammed of the Federal Ministry of Works and Housing, which is the

authentic evidence to show how much was paid over the land and

improvements on the disputed land.

12

He argued that, there was no evidence as to any other person that, the 1st

and 2nd Defendants who claim to have put up structures on the land in

dispute and such were paid compensation. He added that, it therefore

does not matter what ever name he had used in the collection of the said

compensations totaling N25, 364, 120.00 (Twenty – five Million, Three

Hundred and Sixty four Thousand, One Hundred and Twenty Naira) only.

Finally on this issue, counsel argued that, it is doubtful that 2nd Defendant

took possession in 1982 undisturbed, but 1st Defendant is now litigating over

ownership of the land he has given out since 1982 with Plaintiff and Mr.

Simeon Nnagbolu in 1993 and 1997, respectively. He submitted that, this

fact was acknowledged by DW1 under cross examination.

Again, he argued that, it is also doubtful and create a lot of suspicion on

Exhibit ‘D3’, which is the Certificate of occupancy that the 2nd Defendants

was in different courts before during and after then claiming ownership of

the disputed land.

On issue No. 2, which is prior to the creation of the Federal Capital Territory,

between the Plaintiff and the Defendants, who was in possession and had a

better title to the land in dispute?

In arguing this ground, counsel urged the court to consider the arguments

and submissions in Issue No. 1, and resolve this issue in favour of the Plaintiff.

He contended that, evidence on record is clear that Plaintiff’s father was in

possession before the creation of the Federal Capital Territory and build one

round house and four rooms on the disputed land while he was farming on

the remaining land.

Also, counsel submitted that, evidence was laid which was corroborated by

1st Defendant to the effect that the Plaintiff was in possession. He stated

that, the 1st Defendant also admitted Plaintiff’s evidence that the land was

given to the Plaintiff by Chief of Karu but could not prove or corroborate his

own assertion of being the original owner.

13

On this leg, counsel urged the court based on clear and uncontroverted

evidence in court to hold that Plaintiff had a better title over the disputed

land and was in possession of same even before the creation of the Federal

Capital Territory, Abuja. He submitted that, this possession was never

disturbed until the Defendants trespass into the land after the creation of

the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja.

He maintained that, the 1st Defendant was never in possession. And stated

that, he claim to the effect that, the land devolved on him through his

maternal home has not been corroborated by any single witness. This lack

of corroborative evidence makes his claim unbelievable. He argued court

may have to ask if the 1st Defendant who claims as an indigenous owner of

the land is saying the truth why he has not been able to produce a single

witness to corroborate his claim.

On Issue 3, which is, ‘Where the original source of title is valid, whether the

acquisition of a Certificate of Occupancy can confer title to a party as

against a person who has a better title?

Counsel submitted that, Exhibit ‘D3’, is a purported Certified True Copy of

the Certificate of Occupancy with Reference Number MZPT/539, which 2nd

Defendant claimed to have been granted him in 1993 over the piece and

parcel of land in dispute.

It was his submission, equally that, according to 2nd Defendant, the land in

dispute was given to him as a gift by the 1st Defendant in 1982. Counsel c-

strongly submitted that, the argument canvassed both in Issue No. 1 and

Issue No. 2 that, 1st Defendant does not have title over the disputed land.

He stated that, even decided cases have also shown to that effect and he

could therefore not have given to the 2nd Defendant (Mr. Christopher

Omeh) that which he does not have because he does not have a better

title than the Plaintiff, whose father (Joshua Agaba) has a better right to the

use and occupation of the land in dispute.

Learned counsel contended that, the claim of the 2nd Defendant that, he

bought from Plaintiff’s father three (3) rooms and one (1) store built of native

grass goes to no issue as against plaintiff’s claim and corroborated

evidence that, his father built one round house and four rooms.

14

Counsel urged the court not to attach any weight to the inadmissible

receipts tendered by him and also on the fact that, the said

receipt/agreement was an after though created to prejudice the Plaintiff.

He stated that, the 1st Defendant never confronted plaintiff’s father who

started this case with the receipt but chose to do same after the death of

his father (Joshua Agaba), simply to prejudice the Plaintiff. Counsel

submitted that, there is no corroboration of the purported transaction by

any of the witnesses that were alleged to have witnessed the transaction.

He submitted that, the evidence of the Defendants based on the content

of an earlier proceedings where they alleged that, plaintiff’s father stated

that, he had no hand in the institution of the case goes to no issue since

they have not produced or tendered before the court, the records of the

proceedings of the court where the alleged statement was made.

Again, he submitted that, the source of the 2nd Defendant is therefore

defective, having been obtained from a person (1st Defendant0 who had

no title or better right to the use and occupation of the land in dispute.

Further, he argued that, the Certificate of occupancy purportedly granted

to the 2nd Defendant according to his evidence was based on the

purported right given to him by 1st Defendant who in the first place had no

title or right of possession over the land in issue.

It was his further submission that, it is the law that, where Certificate of

occupancy has been granted to a person who had not proved a better

title, then, such grant goes to no effect and courts are enjoined to set aside

such grant. Counsel relied on the Supreme Court case of OGUNLEYE Vs. ONI

(1990) 2 NWLR (Pt. 135) P. 795 at 784, and ALHAJI ABDUL SALAMI TENIOLA Vs.

ALHAJI MUSTAPHA OLOHUNKU (1999) NWLR (Pt. 602).

Counsel urged the court to set aside the purported grant of the Certificate

of Occupancy no. MZPT/539 purportedly granted to the 2nd Defendant by

the Abuja municipal Area council, dated the 23rd day of March, 1993, and

to resolve issue No. 3, in favour of the Plaintiff and to grant him all the

declarations as prayed.

15

He finally argued that, if the purported Certificate of occupancy was truly

granted to the 2nd Defendant in 1993, the 1st Defendant could not have

sued the Abuja Municipal Area council and Simeon Nnagbolu in 1995 in Suit

No. FCT/HC/CV/313/95 over the same land, which said case, was dismissed

on the 12th day of May, 1998, against the 1st Defendant.

Finally on the last issue, which is,

‘Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to compensation paid in respect of the land

subject matter of this suit and structures therein?’

Learned Plaintiff’s counsel submitted that, evidence has shown that,

Plaintiff’s father has a better right to the use and occupation of the

disputed land. He stated that, evidence has shown that, the Plaintiff’s father

was in occupation prior to the creation of the Federal Capital Territory,

Abuja, in 1976, wherein he built one round house and four rooms while

farming at remaining portion of the land.

It was also his submission that, there also evidence to the effect that, a

power of Attorney was given to one Simeon Nnagbolu over the piece and

parcel of land while Plaintiff’s father was away. He stated further, that there

also evidence to the effect that, the 1st Defendant & 2nd Defendants

trespass into the land when 1st defendant unlawfully placed the 2nd

defendant on the land he maliciously demolished the entire structure

therein and placed his own structures.

He said it is also in evidence that, the Plaintiff’s father’s structure where

originally marked by the government authorities for compensation before

they were destroyed unlawfully by the 2nd Defendant who admitted that,

he did it.

Counsel submitted that, 1st and 2nd defendants having trespassed into the

disputed land and collected compensation, which ordinarily would have

been paid to the Plaintiff should be directed to return the compensation to

the Plaintiff.

16

He further submitted that, it is the law that, what wavers that is placed on

the land belongs to the owner of the land based on the maxim quiquid

plantour solo solo cedit and so urged the court to hold that, the Plaintiff is

the legitimate owner of the buildings illegally erected in his said land by the

Defendants and that, the total sum of N25, 364, 120.00 (Twenty – five Million,

Three Hundred and Sixty – four Thousand, One Hundred and Twenty Naira)

only paid as compensation be returned back to him.

In conclusion, counsel submitted that, the Plaintiff has by preponderance of

evidence proof his claim against the Defendants. He said the Plaintiff has

proved that, he has a better title and right of possession over the piece and

parcel in dispute as against the Defendants.

Equally, counsel submitted that, the Plaintiff has proved that, the 1st

Defendant has no title over the piece and parcel of land in dispute which

he could transfer to the 2nd Defendant. He believe that, the Plaintiff has

proved that, the piece and parcel of land in dispute was given to his father

by way of outright gift by the Chief of Karu.

He also submitted that, the Plaintiff has established that, the Certificate of

Occupancy tendered by the 2nd Defendant is not valid since his source of

title is not valid. Again, he maintained that, the Plaintiff has established that

being the owner of the land in dispute and structures therein, he is the

person that is entitled to compensation payable in respect of such

structure.

Finally, he argued that, based on the argument proffered above, the

plaintiff has proved his case and is entitled to the grant of all the prayers

contained in his statement of Claim. He urged the court to grant same.

On the other hand, the Defendant’s counsel, T. Tabai Esq., in his Final

Written Address, formulated two (2) issues for determination by the court,

thus;

1. Whether the Plaintiff has sufficiently proved ownership of the land in issue

so as to warrant his claim for the damages in trespass?

2. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to the compensation paid in respect of

the structure or structures on the portion of land in issue?;

17

In arguing these issues, counsel submitted on issue one that, a party

claiming declaration of title to land has an option of five ways to prove

such title, and they are;

a. By traditional history,

b. By production of document of title,

c. By virtue acts of ownership over a sufficient length of time numerous

and positive enough as to warrant inference that the person is the true

owner,

d. By acts of long possession, and

e. By proof of possession of connected or adjacent land in circumstances

rendering it probable that, the owner of such connect adjacent land

would be the true owner of the land in dispute.

Counsel referred the court to cases of IDUNDUN Vs. OKUMAGBA (1976) 10

NSCC, 445, YUSUF Vs. ADEGOKE (20070 11 NWLR (Pt. 1045) 332, OBINECHI Vs.

AKUSOBI (2010) 12 NWLR (Pt. 12080 383, NWOKIDU Vs. OKANU (2010) 3 NWLR

(Pt. 1181) 362, and ASHIRE Vs. OLUKOYA (2006) 11 NWLR (Pt. 990) 1.

In his submission, counsel argued that, to establish a claim for declaration of

title to land by traditional evidence, it is not sufficient for the Plaintiff to say

that, the land in dispute belonged exclusively to his father, he must show

how the family got the land, either from some other persons or authority in

succession or that, the family found it a virgin land and deforest it. He

added that, he must get further to plead and prove names and history of

the ancestors from whom he derived his title or plead and prove grant,

settlement or conquest. He referred the court to the cases of OKO VS.

OKENWA (2010) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1181), 40-7, and NWADIOGBU Vs. NNADOZIE (2001)

12 NWLR (Pt. 727) 315, and NGENE VS. IGBO (2000) 4 NWLR (Pt. 651) 131, ALLI

Vs. ALESINLOYE (2000) 6 NWLR (Pt. 660) 177, and NWOKIDO Vs. KANU (SUPRA).

The Plaintiff’s case is that, the Plaintiff’s first witness, Jubril Agaba(PW1)

testified and adopted his Statement on Oath filed on the 13th day of

October, 2008, on the 17th day of March, 2009. In summary, he stated that,

his father, Joshua Agaba (now deceased) who worked with the Federal

Ministry of Works, under the Road maintenance Unit, Keffi, around 1976,

stated the case.

18

He added that, before the creation of the Federal Capital Territory, his

father (also known as ‘Overseer’) was transferred to Nyanya and since he

had no house there, the Chief of Karu gave him and others a large expanse

of land to build and to farm. His father developed his own portion and built

one round house and four rooms.

In 1989, before he moved back to Keffi, he gave one Simeon Nnagbolu the

Power of Attorney over the said land. PW1 added that sometimes

afterwards, when the said Simeon Nnagbolu was away from Nyanya for a

while, one Christopher Omeh (who got the land from one Dauda

Knudowan) demolished his father’s structures and erected a storey building

and shops.

That, when the Nyanya express road was being constructed, the said

structures were demolished and the compensation which ought to have

been paid to him because his father owned the land was paid to the said

Christopher Omeh, and that both Christopher Omeh and Dauda

Knudowan are trespassers.

2. PW1 under cross examination said that, he was not aware that, his father

had come before his lordship, Sidi Bage, J. and said he did not have a hand

in the instant case. He also said that, he does not know whether

compensation was paid over the said land because he was never paid. He

continued in contradiction to his evidence in chief that, Christopher Omeh

did not demolish his father’s huts and did not know who did, but he is aware

that, Christopher Omeh had a storey building at that time. He added that,

he did not know the value of his father’s structures and again that, the

compensation money ought to have been paid to him.

3. The plaintiff’s second witness, Simeon Nnagbolu (PW2), testified and

adopted his Statement on Oath of 13th day of October, 2008 on the 42th

day of June, 2010. His evidence in chief is in linne with what that of PW1, he

however, added that, he sued Christopher Omeh because of the erections

he made on the land, and while the case pending in court, compensation

over the said structures was paid to Christopher Omeh instead. He admitted

that, he did not have a Certificate of Occupancy in respect of the said

land. He then, attempted to tender the (unregistered) Power of Attorney

19

executed in his favour to show that, he purportedly has some form of title

over the said land. However, and as a result of the objection by the

Defendants’ counsel, the said Power of Attorney marked Exhibit ‘A7’, was

admitted in evidence only to show that, there was a transaction between

the Plaintiff’s father, Joshua Agaba and him.

4. PW2 under cross examination admitted that, the case is all about

compensation and he is the one behind the case even though he is the

Plaintiff. He agreed that, he received compensation for his own structures

on his land but he could not remember the number of houses and how

much he received. Ironically however, although, he did not know the

valued Joshua Agaba’s structures, he remembered how much Christopher

Omeh received in compensation, the amount he gave as N25, 364, 120.00

He stressed that, the land belonged to Joshua Agaba (who admitted had

no C of o over the land), and since the Power of Attorney was given to him,

the said compensation money ought to have been paid to him.

5. The Plaintiff’s third witness, Mrs. Jumai Danjuma Robo (PW3) testified and

adopted her Amended Witness Statement on Oath of 24th day of June,

2009, on the 1st day of March, 2011. In summary, she stated that Joshua

Agaba gave her uncle, one Mr. Usman, a portion of the said land given to

him by the Chief of Karu. She inherited he uncle’s developed portion which

she later sold to Simeon Nnagbolu for N10, 000.00 (Ten Thousand naira) only.

She added that Dauda Knudowan, the 1st Defendant herein, sued her

husband Danjuma Robo to court and he lost, but she had nothing to show

to that effect. She concluded that, she did not know if the Chief of Karu

had a Certificate over the said land.

6. The Plaintiff had initially on the 22nd day of July, 2009, subpoenaed a witness

from the Federal Ministry of Works and Housing, Mr. Yakubu Mohammed. He

tendered in evidence a bunch of documents from the archives of the

Ministry. The said documents, which he identified as indemnify certificates

were admitted in evidence and marked Exhibits ‘A1’ – ‘A6’, respectively.

7. The Defendants’ on their own part called two witnesses, the 1st Defendant

witness, Dauda Knudowan (DW1) testified and adopted his Witness

Statement on oath of 23rd day of October, 2008, on the 14th day of March,

2012.

20

In summary, (at the risk of the prolixity) his evidence in chief is as follows.

“Before the creation of the Federal Capital Territory, DW! Owned a large

expanse of land then laying between the now demolished ECWA Bishara 1,

along Keffi Road, measuring 0.41 hectares, which was originally the farm

land of DW1’s late maternal uncles Yecenu and Wuanyiya, who were the

first to farm there having come down from Nyanya hill in the late 1950’s. The

land was then given to his father (after he married his mother, Ceknulo) to

settle and farm there forever. Some years afterwards, during the reign of

Chief Bawabyui of Nyanya, he wanted to set up a poultry farm and his

father with the endorsement of the Chief of Nyanya and his uncles gave

him a piece of land which was from a bigger portion of land.

Before the death of his father, DW! Was put in total charge of the land and

he enjoyed unchallenged title and subsequently got the land surveyed in

1976, when it became part of the Federal Capital Territory.

That, when the construction of Nyanya – Keffi road began, the Chief of Karu

with his consent gave Joshua Agaba also known as ‘Overseer’ a part of his

land to camp in temporarily with other road workers. He stated further that,

overseer and his worker built huts on the land and also did some small level

farming, and that, when they were through with the construction work they

vacated the land and handed it over to him.

That, overseer, Joshua Agaba only had a temporary license to occupy that

land and therefore not entitled to any benefit or compensation from any

government department. Joshua Agaba had no interest whatsoever to

donate to Simeon Nnagbolu by way of Power of Attorney nor had Simeon

Nnagbolu ever been in charge of the land in dispute, neither did he have

any farm anywhere on the land.

He stated that, Joshua Agaba, well before hearing in this suit commenced,

had on aoth stated before Sidi Bage J. (as he then was) in this matter that,

he never instructed that, this suit be filed because the land is not his own,

and that Joshua Agaba never won any case against DW1 in respect of the

said land, but it was DW! Himself who got judgment against Joshua Agaba,

at the Grade 1, Area Court, Karu – Abuja in 1993. (The said judgment was

admitted in evidence and marked Exhibit ‘D1’).

21

DW1 added that, in 1982, he gave the same piece of land to the 2nd

Defendant who built a storey building on it in 1998 in addition to other

structures. That, the compensation given in respect of the physical structures

belonging to the 2nd Defendant.”

8. Dw1 under cross examination said in summary that, he remembered suing

one Danjuma karu amd one Usman, 1990, which he won, but did not have

the judgments in court. He said he never wanted to buy any land from the

said Usman. He added that he could not remember suing Simeon

Nnagbolu because there were so many cases. He agreed that Christopher

is his friend and he gave him the land as gift, and he also has a building

opposite the land in issue, which was given to him by his father.

9. Under cross examination, DW2, gave evidence in line with his evidence in

chief. He however added that, although the 1st Defendant, Dauda

Knudawan did not show any document of title, he believed he had title

because he is an indigene and he met him there. He was told that Joshua

Agaba’s structures were only on the land temporarily and that one brother

Michael Okpara was the witness on his part. He further added that, he went

with Dauda Knudowan to the Abuja Municipal Area Council to apply for

the certificate of occupancy and was give.

Counsel to the Defendant, submitted that, PW1 in his Statement on Oath

stated that, before the creation of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, his

father, Joshua Agaba, was given a portion of land (as a purported outright

gift when he was transferred to Nyanya by the then Chief of Karu to build

and to farm. It was based on the purported gift of land that a Power of

Attorney was executed in favour of Simeon Nnagbolu (PW2). The three

other Plaintiff’s witnesses reiterated the same thing.

Counsel to the defence, submitted that, however, PW2 in his statement on

Oath said, ‘ I do not have a certificate in respect of the said land because

Danjuma Tanze was not given any certificate by the Chief of Karu’. Also

counsel stated that, PW3, and PW4 when asked respectively under cross

examination, ‘if they knew whether the Chief of Karu had a certificate of

occupancy over the said land, they both answered that they did not

know’.

22

Counsel submitted that, Dw1 has said that his maternal uncles, Yecenu and

Wuaniyiya were the first to farm on the said land having come down from

Nyanya Hill in the late 1950’s. He added that, the land which later devolved

on his father after he married his mother (his uncle sister) Cekunulo, was

subsequently transferred to Dw1, part of which he later gave as a gift to

Christopher Omeh (DW2) in 1982.

Counsel contended that, now, the burden which is on the Plaintiff to show

how his title was derived, has failed to do so by failing to show the root of

the title of the Chief of Karu, rather, it is submitted that, the 1st Defendant

has shown a more coherent, consistent, and convincing traditional

evidence.

He submitted that, the foregoing argument is however superfluous

because, in the Federal capital Territory, no matter how, coherent,

consistent, and convincing a traditional evidence is, a person’s root of title

must be ultimately traced to the Federal government, reason being that, at

the creation of the Federal Capital Territory in 1976, all lands vested

ultimately in the Federal government. He referred the court to Section 1(3)

of the Federal Capital Territory Act., Cap. F6, laws of the Federation of

Nigeria, 2007, and the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria

at Section 296(1) 7 (2), which is equivalent to Section 261(1) & (2) of the

1979 Constitution)

He argued that, the combined effect of the above provisions have

exclusively vested all rights on land in the Federal Capital Territory on the

Federal Government, consequently, all those occupying any portion of the

land in the Federal Capital Territory without the consent of the Authority are

sqatters on the land. He said that, similarly, whatever customary right of

occupancy the original occupiers of the lands had prior to the acquisition

of the entire area ceased to exist as from the 4th day of February, 1976,

when the Federal Capital Territory came into force.

In the same vein, counsel submitted that, a person claiming title to land in

Federal Capital Territory must show that, he has a letter of Allocation, a

Statutory Right of Occupancy, a Certificate of Occupancy or any other title

document ultimately tracing ownership to the Federal Government.

23

He argued that, it is not just enough to produce document of title, the

production of an instrument carries with it the need for the court to inquire

into a number of questions, which includes;

a. whether the document is genuine and valid

b. whether the document has been duly executed, stamped and

registered;

c. whether the grantor had the authority and capacity to make the

grant;

d. whether the grantor had in fact what he purported to grant; and

e. whether it had the effect claimed by the holder.

Counsel referred the court to the cases of ROMAINE Vs. ROMAINE (1992) 4

NWLR (Pt. 238) 65; and ENILOLOBO Vs. ADEGBESAN (2001) 2 NWLR (Pt. 698) 611.

Counsel maintained that, in the instant case, Exhibit ‘A7’, which was

purportedly tendered to show title was only admitted in evidence to show

that, there was a transaction between the Plaintiff’s father, Danjuma Tanze

and Simeon Nnagbolu (PW2). He contended further that, no other

document was pleaded or tendered in evidence to show title, which they

purportedly claim.

Learned counsel submitted that on the part of the Defendant, however,

DW1 tendered in evidence Exhibit’D1’, which is the 1993 judgment of the

Grade 1, Area Court, Karu – Abuja against the Plaintiff’s father over the

same subject matter as in this suit. He further submitted that, 2nd Defendant,

after he got the land from the 1st Defendant took steps to authenticate his

title, and that, the applied to the Abuja Municipal Area Council an

extension of the appropriate authority in charge of lands in the F. C. T. for a

Certificate of Occupancy and was granted. Counsel referred the court to

Exhibit ‘D3’, that no other title can be more superior to that, and Exhibit

‘D1’, where a judgment of court, which is final between the same parties

with the same questions for determination and before a competent court

(including a native court judgment), cannot operate as estoppel per rem

judicatam, it may constitute a prima facie act possession where it pertains

to land in dispute. In this regard, counsel cited the cases of OBINECHI Vs.

AKUSOBI (SUPRA) and KAMALU Vs. UMUNNA (1997) 5 NWLR (Pt. 505) 321.

24

Counsel submitted that, the Plaintiff in paragraph 27(b0 of his Amended

Statement of Claim, claims as follows (at the risk of prolixity)

“A declaration that, the Defendants by entering into Plaintiff’s piece

and parcel of land aforesaid and erecting buildings in same without

Plaintiff’s consent or approval are trespass.” (sic)

In this regards, counsel contended that, no doubt, a claim for trespass is

rooted in exclusive possession and all that, a claimant need to prove is that,

he has exclusive possession of the land in dispute. He argued further that,

once a Defendant claims to be the owner of the land in dispute, as in the

instant case, title is put in issue and to succeed in his action, the Plaintiff

must establish by credible evidence that, he has a better title than the

Defendant. he said, this he does by relying absolutely on the strength of his

case and not the weakness of the defence. Counsel relied on the cases of

OMOTAYO Vs. COOPERATIVE SUPPLY ASSOCIATION (2010) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1218) 1

and NWADIOGBU Vs. NNADOZIE (SUPRA).

On issue No. 1, finally, counsel submitted that, the 1st Defendant after he

was given the land by the 2nd Defendant in 1982, said he located the

Plaintiff’s father in Keffi, and bought from him the three (3) native grass

houses and one (1) store for N800.00, meaning that, at that time, the

Plaintiff’s father was not even on the land. Counsel added that, from them

till the time of demolition, the 1st Defendant enjoyed exclusive and quiet

possession. Counsel referred the court to Exhibit ‘D2’.

Form the forgoing, counsel submitted that, the Plaintiff failed to show that,

he is the owner of the land, he was in exclusive possession at the time of the

alleged trespass or that, he has a belter title than the Defendant. He urged

the court to answer Issue 1 in the Negative in favour of the Defendant.

On issue Two, which is,

“Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to the compensation paid in respect of

the structure or structures on the portion of land in issue?”

It was submitted that, this issue in many ways is intertwined with issue one, or

is an extension of it, and therefore may require reference to the argument

thereto at appropriate points.

25

Counsel submitted also in his submission that, the Plaintiff herein, claims that,

he is the owner of the land in issue, and based on the maxim, quicquid solo

solo cedit, he is the legitimate owner of the building(s) erected by the 1st

Defendant and therefore entitled to the compensation paid thereof. He

further submitted that, it has been clearly established above that, the

Plaintiff cannot be the owner of the said land having failed to trace his

purported ownership to the Federal Government. Counsel adopted his

argument under issue No. 1. And referred the court to Section 44(1) of the

1999 Constitution, which provides that,

“No immovable property or any interest in an immovable property

shall be taken possession of compulsorily and no right over or interest

in such property shall be acquired compulsorily in any part of Nigeria

except in the manner and for the purposes prescribed by a law that,

among other things,

(a) requires the prompt payment of compensation therefore …….”

Again, in PER AKINTAN J. C. A. (as he then was) in ONA Vs. ATENDA (SUPRA)

at 268, para C – D, where it was held thus,.

“….. similarly, claims for compensation for lands acquired by the

Government for Public purposes under a statute are statutory; and no

owner of land so expropriated by statute, is entitled to compensation

unless he can establish a statutory right to such compensation..”

In support, counsel submitted that, in the instant case however,

compensation was paid for structures on the land alone, and all those

whose structures were affected duly compensated. He argued that, for the

Defendant, his own structure that was affected was a one storey building

valued at N7, 215, 250.00 (Seven Million, Two Hundred and Fifteen

Thousand, Two Hundred and Fifty Naira) only, which he received through

Lechez Consultants agents of the Federal Ministry of Works and Housing.

Counsel referred the court to Exhibit ‘D4’.

26

Finally, counsel urged the court to resolve issue number 2, in the negative,

also in favour of the Defendants. On the whole, counsel submitted that, the

Plaintiff’s entire claims therein must failed for the following reasons,

1. the Plaintiff failed to prove ownership by tracing title ultimately to the

Federal Government being the ultimate title holder of all lands in the F. C. T.

2. the 2nd Defendant proved that, he had a Certificate of Occupancy, also

that, he bought over the temporary structures on the land from Danjuma

Tanze, as shown in Exhibit ‘D2’, before demolishing them;

3. the 2nd Defendant also proved ownership of a storey building for which he

was compensated;

4. the 2nd Defendant’s title over the land was presumably subsistent at the

time of the compensation exercise;

5. the plaintiff was never entitled to compensation because he had no

structures on that land, his father having parted with them; and,

6. the Federal Government compensated for structures on the land alone and

not the land.

He submitted conclusively, that, in the light of the argument proffered

above, the Plaintiff has no Cause of Action, his claims should therefore be

dismissed with substantial court and urged the court to so hold.

I have painstakingly perused the Statement of Claim, the Joint Statement of

defence, the Witness Statement on oath, and other processes filed in this

suit.

I took my time and evaluate extensively the entire evidence adduced by

the parties to this suit. Also, I studied carefully the Final Written Addresses

filed and adopted by counsels to the parties.

Having done all these, it is therefore by humble view that, the issues that are

for determination are two, namely;

1. Whether the Plaintiff has proved his case to be entitled to declarations

sought?; and

2. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to the compensation paid in respect of

the structure on the land subject matter of this suit?

27

I shall take the issues serially. On Issue One, it is elementary law and also well

settled that, the burden of prove or onus of proof is on the Plaintiff, who is

seeking declaration of title to prove his claim in any of the ways recognized

by law with credible and admissible evidence.

To put it in another words, the law has recognized five ways of prove of

ownership of land. Authorities are legion on this and nevertheless, I refer to

the case of ISITOR Vs. FAKARODE (2008) 1 NWLR (Pt. 1069) 602 at 619 paras C

– G, where it was held thus;

“On the first leg that is proof of ownership of land in dispute, it is now

settled that, there are five way to which ownership of land may be proof

as set out in the case of IDUNDUN Vs. OKWUAGBA (1976) 1 NWLR 200 at

210 – the five ways are stated thus;

Firstly, ownership of land may be proved by tradition evidence, secondly,

ownership of land may be proved by production of documents of title

which must of course be duly authenticated in the sense that their due

execution must be proceed.

Thirdly, acts of ownership extending over a sufficient length of time and

are numerous and positive enough to warrant the inference that, the

person is the true owner.

Fourthly, acts of long possession and enjoyment of land, which may be

prima facie evidence of ownership of the particular piece or parcel of

land or quantity of land.

Finally, proof of possession of connected or adjacent land in

circumstances rendering it probable that, the owner of such connected

or adjacent land would in addition be the owner of the land in dispute. It

is trite law that each of the five methods by which ownership of land

may be proved will suffice independently of the others to prove title of

land.”

See the following cases, EGWA Vs. EGWA (20070 1 NWLR (Pt. 1014) 71 at 89 –

88, para H – D, OJELADE Vs. SOROYE (1998) 5 NWLR (Pt. 549) 284, NNADI VS.

OKORO (1998) 1 NWLR (Pt. 535) 575, and OGUNRO Vs. AROWOLO (1998) 6

NWLR (Pt. 5270) 78.

28

Having pointed out the ways or methods of proving ownership to land or

title to land, I will now evaluate again the evidence of the Plaintiff before

the court.

It should be noted that, the Plaintiff based his case on traditional evidence

to prove that, he has a better title than the Defendants to the land in

dispute. To establish his ownership over the said land in dispute, the Plaintiff

gave evidence as PW1, and stated that, the land, which is the subject

matter of this suit, was acquired by his late father from Chief of Karu as an

outright gift. That, the piece and parcel of land given to his father by way of

outright gift by the Chief of Karu was a large expense of land lying along

Keffi road.

He further stated that, the land was given to his late father and other staff of

the Federal Ministry of Works who were working under Road Maintenance

Unit, which residing at Nyanya, which was then in Benue /Plateau State

even before the creation of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja in 1976.

And that, his late father built on his own portion of the land, a round house

and four (4) rooms and continued farming on remaining portion. PW1

stated further in his evidence that, when Federal Capital Territory was

created, the house were numbered 30 and 31 by Federal Capital

Development authority, and his father measured his own portion of land

and it measured 3920 square meter.

More so, that, his father parked to Keffi around 1989 and gave Power of

Attorney to Simeon Nnagbolu to take care of the land. That, the 1st

Defendant sold the land in dispute to 2nd Defendant, who started building

houses and shops on them. That, the 2nd Defendant demolished his late

father’s round house and four rooms and erected a storey building and

shops.

In further proof of his ownership to the land in dispute, the Plaintiff called

other three (3) witnesses and the evidence of PW£ and PW4 were in line

with that of PW1 to the effect that, the land in dispute was given to the

Plaintiff’s late father as an outright gift by the Chief of Karu.

29

At this juncture, it is apparently clear from the totality of Plaintiff’s evidence

evaluated above that, the Plaintiff traced his root of title to the land in

dispute to Chief of Karu, who he said gave the land in dispute to his late

father as an outright gift.

Therefore, it is trite law that, a Plaintiff claiming declaration of title to land

must aver the pleadings and prove by evidence the origin of his grantor’s

title to the land in dispute. In this respect, see the case of YUSUF Vs.

ADEGOKE (2007) 11 NWLR 322 at 379, paras D – H, where it was held thus;

“… strangely, the lower courts have not seen the Plaintiff’s case from this

perspective in spite of their finding that, it has not been proved as pleaded.

I shall advert to this aspect of the case anon. And even then a more

fundamental defect in the Plaintiff’s case as per their pleading and

evidence in this case and which has damaged their case even more

rendering it as baseless in their apparent failure to plead facts and lead

evidence as to how Alenshiloye, their grantor acquired title to the land in

dispute.

This break in the chain of devolution is damaging to the Plaintiff’s case.

where therefore, the line of succession is not satisfactorily traced and has

gaps or nexus which are not established as I have shown here, then such

line of succession would be rejected.

In other words, the origin of their grantor’s title to the land in dispute has to

be averred on the pleading and proved by evidence. This is so as the

Defendant has joined issues with the Plaintiff on their settlement by grant.

There is no way the Plaintiffs could have secured the declaration they are

seeking here without proving of their grantor’s title to the land in dispute.”

Consequently, in the instant case, the Plaintiff did not plead in his pleading

the origin of chief of Karu’s title to the land in dispute being his late father’s

grantor nor did he hand any evidence at the trial to that effect, which the

Supreme Court in YUSUF Vs. ADEGOKE (SUPRA), said is damaging to the

Plaintiff’s case. I cannot hold otherwise.

30

It should be stressed here that, the Plaintiff traced his late father’s root of

title to the Chief of Karu but could not trace that of Chief of Karu, which in

my opinion is inconclusive.

More so, PW3 and PW4 were asked under cross examination, ’whether chief

of Karu has Certificate of Occupancy to the land in dispute?’, they

answered that, they do not know, and they do not know too of Joshua

Agaba, (the Plaintiff’s late father) has Certificate to the land in dispute.

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s evidence of possession and building thereon

cannot assist. Again, the Supreme Court has said in YUSUF Vs. ADEGOKE

(SUPRA) at P. 374, paras C – D, that;

“If a party relies on and pleads a grant as his root of title, he is under a

duty to prove such grant to the satisfaction of trial court. Other evidence

of act of possession after the grant will merely go to strengthen the grant.

But, where as in this case, the proof of the grant is inconclusive, the

bottom is knocked out of the Plaintiff’s/Appellant’s claim, where his root

ceases to stand, the stem and branches will fall with the root.”

Furthermore, Court of Appeal, also, held in UGWANZE Vs. ADELEKE (2008) 2

NWLR (Pt. 1070) 148 at para 175 – 176, paras G – D, thus;

“…. The onus of proof of title to land is always on the party seeking

declaration in respect thereof, not until such burden is discharged, it will

never shift …….”

In the instant case and from the totality of the Plaintiff’s evidence before

the court, I am of the strong view that, the Plaintiff has not discharge the

burden placed on him to warrant the onus to shift to the Defendants.

Nevertheless, I shall turn to evaluate the evidence adduced by the

Defendants. Before then, it should be bore in mind that, the Defendants

also based their case on traditional history in claiming ownership of the land

in dispute.

In that regard, the 1st Defendant, who claimed he is the owner of the land

in dispute testified at the trial as DW1 and stated that, he owned a large

expanse of land before the creation of Federal Capital Territory, then lying

between the now demolished ECWA Bishara 1, along Keffi Road, measuring

31

0.41 hectares, which was originally the farmland of his late maternal uncles

Yecenu and Wuaniyiya, who were the first to farm there, having come

down from Nyanya Hill in the late 1950’s. The land was then given to his

father (after he married his mother, (Eknulo) to settled and farm there

forever.

Some years afterwards, during the reign of Chief of Bawabji of Nyanya, he

wanted to set up a Poultry farm and his father with the endorsement of the

Chief of Nyanya and his uncles gave him a piece of land, which was from a

bigger portion of land. That, before the death of his father, he (DW1) was

put in total charge of the land and he enjoyed unchallenged title and

subsequently got the land surveyed in 1976, when it became part of the

Federal Capital territory.

That, when the construction of Nyanya – Keffi Road began, the Chief of

Karu with his (DW1) consent gave Danjuma Tanze (the Plaintiff’s father) also

known as ‘overseer’ a part of his land to camp in temporarily with other

road workers. DW1 stated further that, overseer and his co - workers built

huts on the land and also did some small level farming and that, when they

were through with the construction work, they vacated the land and

handed it over to him.

That, overseer, Joshua Agaba only had a temporary license to occupy that

land and therefore not entitled to any benefit or compensation from any

government department.

Let me purse here, and refer to the case of IBIKUNLE VS. LAWANI (2007) 3

NWLR (Pt. 10220 580 at 595, paras C – E, where it was held thus;

“… In a claim of declaration of title to land based on inheritance from

ancestors, the claimant must plead the names or the histories of the

several progenitors. … ”

The court went further and stated at page 599, paras E – H, in the same

case of IBIKUNLE Vs. LAWANI (SUPRA) that,

“.. a person who traces the root of his title to a person or family must

established how that person or family also come to have title vested in

him or it. This principle equally applies to the Defendant.”

32

From the evidence of DW1, evaluated above, vis – a – vis the averments in

the Joint Statement of defence, particularly paragraphs 3(b), (c), (d), (e),

(f), and (g), it is apparently clear that, the Defendant who is claiming

ownership of the land in dispute has pleaded and proved the names of his

maternal uncles, the name of his mother who was a sister to his maternal

uncle’s and how his father got the land in dispute by reason of marriage to

his mother as well as how his maternal uncles got title to the land in dispute

by reason of being first to farm on it having come down from Nyanya Hills, in

late 1950’s.

Therefore, it is my considered opinion that, DW1 has succeeded in proving

the base upon which he founded his title. I will now take a breath and turn

back to the Plaintiff and reinstate that, the burden is still on him and has not

shift.

To that extent, it is settled law that, the Plaintiff claiming declaration of title

to land must prove his title to land or at least better title that, that of the

Defendant claiming similar interest over the same piece of land and not to

rely on the weakness of the Defendant’s case.

In support of this, I refer to the case of UGWUNZE Vs. ADELEKE (2008) 2 NWLR

(Pt. 1070) 148 at 173 – 174, paras H – B, where it was held by Court of

Appeal that;-

“The law requires the Plaintiff to prove his title to land or at least better title

than that of the Defendant claiming similar interest over the same piece of

land as in this case.

The Plaintiff must discharge this duty credibly and cannot rely on the

weakness of the Defendant’s case ….. in land cases the Plaintiff when

claiming a declaration of title must succeed on the strength of his case. the

onus lies on the Plaintiff to satisfy the court that, he is entitled on the

evidence brought by him to the declaration of the title claimed. The Plaintiff

must rely on the strength of his case and not on the weakness of the

defendant’s case.”

33

At this point, I wish to repeat myself for the avoidance of doubt that, the

Plaintiff in the instant case, from the totality of evidence before the court,

has not to my satisfaction discharge the onus placed on him by law in

proving his title to the land in dispute. In this respect, I seek to fortify myself

with the decision in the case of ODUNZE Vs. NWOSU (2007) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1050)

Q at 46, where the Supreme Court held thus;

“The Plaintiffs however did not support their averments with cogent

evidence as to entitled them title to the land and the order of injunction

sought. When a Plaintiff’s claim is not prove to the satisfaction of the court,

then, the right order to make is a dismissal of the claim by the court …”

Consequently, and without much ado, I take the hint from their lordships’

reasoning in the case cited above and resolve issue one against the Plaintiff

in favour of the Defendants.

That takes me to the last issue i.e., issue two, which is,

“Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to the compensation paid in respect of

the structures on the land subject matter of this suit?”

It should be pointed out at this earlier stage on issue two that, parties from

their pleadings and evidence before the court agreed that, compensation

was paid not on the land in dispute but over the structures thereon. Similarly,

parties admitted the fact that, the Plaintiff’s late father built a round house

and four (4) rooms on the land in dispute.

On that note, It is trite law that, parties are bound by their pleadings and it is

equally the law that, fact admitted need no further proof. In this respect,

see the case of IBIKUNLE Vs. LAWANI (SUPRA) at page 594 – 595, paras H – B,

where it was held that:-

“It is also well settled that, parties are bound by their pleading. Therefore,

all issues to be tried must be settled in the pleadings.”

Also in the case of NTUKS Vs. N. P. A. (2007) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1051) 392, where is

was held that,

“… Admission is the best evidence because it dispenses with proof on

the part of the party alleging the affirmative. ”

34

Having pointed out these facts, it is the Plaintiff’s claim that, the

compensation paid to the 2nd Defendant by the Federal ministry of Works

and Housing through its agent laches Consultants Limited belongs to him as

his late father is the owner of the land in dispute and build on the said land

as well as donated Power of Attorney to Pw2.

On the other hand, the 2nd Defendant, who testified as DW2 told the court

that, the land in dispute was given to him by PW1 as gift in 1982 and he built

several structures on the land. He further stated that, he found on the land

in dispute three (3) rooms and one (1) store built of native grass roofing

belonging to the Plaintiff’s father, which he wanted to remove but that

before the removal of them, he relocated the Plaintiff’s father in Keffi and

negotiated with him and bought over the said three (3) rooms and one (1)

store, native hurt from him at the cost of N800.00 (Eight Hundred Naira). At

the trial, DW2 tendered in evidence Exhibit ‘D2’.

More so, PW1 stated under cross examination that, he is aware that DW2

has several buildings and a storey building on the land in dispute. PW2

equally admitted under cross examination that, there was a storey building

on the land in dispute. In addition, DW2, stated that under cross

examination that, he bought the three (3) rooms and one (1) store from the

Plaintiff’s late father.

It is appropriate at this juncture to say that, the law is settled that decision of

court must be based on fact and material placed before it. In this regard, I

call in aid the decision in EGWENEWU Vs. EJEAGWU (2007) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1031)

431 at 452, paras D – E, where Court of Appeal held thus:-

“It has been held that, the decision of a court must be based only upon

facts and material placed before the court by the parties to the

dispute.”

In the same vein, I have read over and over Exhibit ‘D2’, which is titled ‘AN

AGREEMENT’ and for clarity, I shall reproduce same paragraphs therein,

which I feel are germane to the just conclusion of this case. paragraph 2

reads thus;

“Mr. Overseer sell his house at Nyanya along Nyanya – Keffi Road to Mr.

‘Christopher Omeh, at the sum of Eight Hundred Naira, no kobo

(N800.00)”

35

Paragraph 3 reads thus:-

“This is native grass house, the house is three (3) rooms and one (1) store,

also where he keeps pigs and cock hot.”

Now, it is my belief that, the paragraphs quoted above of Exhibit ‘D2’ are

clear and unambiguous and same do not need any aid in interpretation.

Consequently, it is elementary law that, a court has power to rely on any

document before it in arriving at a just conclusion of an issue. In support of

this, I refer to the case of NIGERGATE LTD Vs. NIGER STATE GOVT. (2008) 13

NWLR (Pt. 1103) 111 at 145 para H, where it was held that:-

“… what is more, a court can rely on any document of fact already

before it or forming part of its records in the determination of any issue

before it. The trial court was therefore right to find in favour of the

Respondents in it ruling under challenge.”

To this end, I pitch my tent with their lordships in the case of NIGER GATE Vs.

NIGER STATE GOVERNMENT (SUPRA), and hold very strongly relying on Exhibit

‘D2’ as well that, the Defendant, i.e. 2nd Defendant has bought over from

the Plaintiff’s late father his one store and three rooms build on the land in

dispute and demolished or removed same and built his storey building.

Therefore, having stated earlier (supra) that, parties agreed that,

compensation was paid not on the land but structures thereon, the

Plaintiff’s late father’s having sold his one store and three rooms as shown by

Exhibit ‘D2’, the Plaintiff is not entitled to any compensation.

I so hold. In that regard, I equally resolve issue two against the Plaintiff in

favour of the Defendants.

In the final analysis, and from the totality of the entire evidence before the

court, it is my considered opinion that, the Plaintiff has failed to furnish the

court with satisfactory evidence to be entitled to the reliefs sought.

To put it in another words, it is my considered opinion for the reasons stated

above, that, the Plaintiff has failed to prove his case as required by law to

be entitled to the relief sought before the court. In the circumstances

therefore, the Plaintiff’s case is hereby dismiss in its entirety.

I make no order as to cost. Parties shall bear their respective cost.

36

That is the judgment of the court.

Sign

Hon. Judge

23/03/2016