STOP SEEING INTRUSIVE ADS, & HAVE PREMIUM FEATURES? Stop seeing intrusive ads and have a smoother reading experience, once you sign up on Judicial Poetry. Sign up now!

WAYS OF PROVING OWNERSHIP OF AND TITLE TO A PIECE OF LAND

Reach more audience. Place advert here.

“The law is trite that in claims for declaration of title to land, there are five recognised ways of proving ownership of and title to a piece of land; and they are: (a) by traditional history of the land which includes modes of acquisition of same by deforestation of the virgin forest by the first settler, conquest of the original owners through acts of war, gifts, etc; (b) by production of documents of title to the land; (c) acts of possession; (d) acts of selling or leasing portions of the land; and proof of possession of connected or adjacent land – Odunze V Nwosu (2007) LPELR-2252(SC) 67, C-F, per Onnoghen, JSC; Idundun V Okumagba (1976) 9-10 SC 227; Omoregie V Idugiemwanye (1985) 2 NWLR (Pt. 5) 41; Duru V Nwosu (1989) LPELR-968(SC) 33.”

— J.H. Sankey, JCA. Ibrahim Muli v Sali Akwai (2021) – CA/G/423/2019

Was this dictum helpful?

SHARE ON

title to land

ESSENCE OF REGISTRATION OF TITLE – ACQUIRING INDEFEASIBLE RIGHT

As observed by the Privy Council in Gibbs v. Messer (1891) A.C. 248 at 254, per Lord Watson delivering the judgment of the Board in regard to a similar law as to registration of title: “The object is to save persons dealing with registered proprietors from the trouble and expense of going behind the register, in order to investigate the history of their author’s [i.e. vendor’s] title, and to satisfy themselves of its validity. That end is accomplished by providing that everyone who purchases in bona fide and for value, from a registered proprietor, and enters his deed of transfer or mortgage on the register, shall thereby acquire an indefeasible right, notwithstanding the infirmity of his author’s title.”

Was this dictum helpful?

WHERE IDENTITY OF LAND NOT IN DISPUTE, DECLARATION OF TITLE MAY BE MADE WITHOUT SURVEY PLAN

The first point that must be made is the basic principle of law that in a counter-claim, just like in any other claim for declaration of title to land, the onus lies on the claimant to prove with precision and certainty and without inconsistency the identity of the land to which his claim or counter-claim relates. See Onwuka v.Ediala (1989) 1 NWLR (Pt. 96) 182; Ezeokeke v. Umunocha Uga (1962) 1 All NLR 477. (1962) 2 SCNLR 199; Olusanmi v. Oshasona (1992) 6 NWLR (Pt. 245) 22 at 36, Udeze v. Chidebe (1990) 1 NWLR (Pt. 125) 141 etc. There can be no doubt that the most common and, perhaps, the easiest way of establishing the precise area of land in dispute is by the production of a survey plan of such land. It is, however, equally clear that it is not in all cases for declaration of title to land that it is necessary to survey and/or tender the survey plan of the land in dispute. There are many cases in which no survey plans are essential for a proper determination of the issue. What the court must consider is whether, in a particular case, it is necessary for the proper trial of the action for a survey plan to be produced. Where there is no difficulty in identifying the land in dispute, a declaration of title may be made without the necessity of tying it to a survey plan.

— Iguh, JSC. Kyari v Alkali (2001) – SC.224/1993

Was this dictum helpful?

TO SUCCEED, CLAIMANT MUST PROVE THE IDENTITY OF THE LAND

It is settled law that in order to succeed in a claim for declaration of title, the plaintiff or claimant must prove or establish the identity of the land in dispute. He is duty bound to prove its exact areas, its boundaries and other features accurately. See Odiche v. Chibogwu (1994) 7 NWLR (Pt. 354) 78; Arabe v. Asanlu (1980) 5 – 7 SC 78; Oke v. Eke (1982) 12 SC 218; Fabunmi v. Agbe (1995) 1 NWLR (Pt. 2) 299; Odofin v. Oni (2001) FWLR (Pt.36) 807, (2001) 3 NWLR (Pt. 701) 488; Ojo v. Adeleke (2002 ) FWLR (Pt. 87) 716, (2002) 8 NWLR (Pt. 768) 223 at 224. It is also settled that where parties own a land on a common boundary, it is necessary to show and prove the exact boundary feature along that common boundary.

— Sanusi JCA. Ikeleve Daagir Ityavkase Ikyereve V. Joseph Kwaghkar (CA/J/45/97, 15 November 2004)

Was this dictum helpful?

WHERE PARTY BASIS HIS TITLE ON GRANT BY CUSTOM IS TO PROVE GRANTOR’S TITLE

This court has made it clear in several decisions that if a party bases its title on a grant according to custom by a particular family or community, that party must go further to plead and prove the origin of the title of that particular person, family or community unless that title has been admitted. See on this Mogaji v. Cadbury Nigeria Ltd. (1985) 2 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 7) 393 at 431 also Elias v. Omo-Bare (1982) 5 S.C.25 at pp.57-58.

— Nnaemeka-Agu, JSC. Ogunleye v Oni (1990) – S.C. 193/1987

Was this dictum helpful?

APPELLANT NEED NOT PROVE ALL FIVE WAYS FOR PROVING OWNERSHIP OF LAND

In an action for declaration of title to land, as in the instant case, a plaintiff need not prove all the five ways. Where the plaintiff’s case is based on traditional evidence of ownership as the legal basis of his claim, his duty is limited to proving such traditional title and no more. On the other hand, if a plaintiff’s claim relies on conveyance as the legal basisof ownership , his duty is simply to produce the documents of title or the title deeds. The same thing applies where he claims through any of the other remaining three ways.

— Onnoghen JSC. Aigbobahi & Ors. v. Aifuwa, Osabuohien & Ors. (SC. 194/2001, 3 Feb 2006)

Was this dictum helpful?

WHERE TRADITIONAL HISTORIES ARE PLAUSIBLE, COURT WILL RELY ADDITIONALLY ON ACTS OF OWNERSHIP & LONG POSSESSION

A party seeking a declaration of title to land is not bound to plead and prove more than one root of title to succeed but he is entitled to rely on more than one root of title. However, where as in this case, he relies on traditional history, and in addition acts of ownership and long possession predicated on the traditional history as pleaded, he is not entitled to a declaration of title based on the evidence of acts of ownership and long possession where the evidence of traditional history is unavailing: See Balogun v. Akanji (1988 ) 1 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 70) 301 at 232; Eronini v. Iheuko (1989) 2 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 101) 46 at 61. However, such evidence of acts of ownership and long possession becomes relevant where the traditional histories given by both sides though plausible are in conflict. In such a situation, it will not be open to the court simply to prefer one side to the other. To determine which of the histories is more probable, the courts have called in aid the principle enunciated in the celebrated case of Kojo II v. Bonsie (1957) 1 W.L.R. 1223 which is to the effect that the preference of one history to the other as being more probable would depend on recent acts of ownership and possession shown by the parties that the court would need to consider to make up its mind. See Ohiaeri v. Akabeze (1992) 2 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 221) 1 at 19, Ekpo v. Ita (1932- 34) 11 N.L.R. 68, Mogaji v. Cadbury (Nig) Ltd. (1985) 2 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 7) 393.

— Edozie JSC. Cosm As Ezukwu v. Peter Ukachukwu Jude Ukachukwu (SC. 160/2000, 2 July 2004)

Was this dictum helpful?

No more related dictum to show.