“Finally, on the issue of long possession, the law is settled that long possession alone cannot imbue title on a claimant where he is unable to prove his root of title and more so, in the face of a person who is in possession and asserts ownership of the land.”
— J.H. Sankey, JCA. Ibrahim Muli v Sali Akwai (2021) – CA/G/423/2019
SHARE ON
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
“The Appellant and the 3rd Respondent in this appeal were all claiming title to the subject property to wit: Right of Occupancy No. GM/14660 on plot E-43 on GDP/4 Layout situate at the City Center behind Federal Medical Center, Gombe. Both parties were claiming title to the land in dispute relying on the allocation made to them by the 1st and 2nd Respondents. Their title is therefore from the same source. The law in such a situation is settled, which is that, when the equities are equal the first in time will prevail and consequently be awarded title to the land. See Achilihu vs Anyatonwu (2013) 12 NWLR (pt 1368) 256.”
— E. Tobi, JCA. Umar Ibrahim v Nasiru Danladi Mu’azu & 2 Ors. (2022) – CA/G/317/2019
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
I need to stress here that a mortgagee’s power of sale becomes exercisable if it has arisen and once it has so arisen, the title of the subsequent purchaser will not be affected by its improper or irregular exercise and the sale will be regarded valid. See MAJEKODUNMI & ORS V. CO-OP BANK LTD (1997) 10 NWLR (prt. 524) 198. But, in exercising the power of sale, a mortgagee is under duty to take reasonable care to obtain the true value of the property. See TEMCO ENG. & CO LTD V. S.B.N. LTD (1995) 5 NWLR (prt. 397) 607. However, a mortgagee will not be restrained on the exercise of his power of sale merely because the mortgagor objects to the manner in which the sale is being arranged or because the mortgagor has commenced a redemption action in Court, but he (mortgagee) will be restrained if the mortgagor pays the amount claimed by the mortgagee into Court.
— M.L. Shuaibu, JCA. FBN v Benlion (2021) – CA/C/31/2016
The land in dispute herein referred to by both parties can only be the land in respect of which Plaintiff claims damages for trespass and perpetual injunction against the Defendant. it is therefore strange and absurd for learned Counsel to the 1st Defendant to contend that the identity of the land in dispute is uncertain. It has always been accepted in our courts in land cases that where the area of land in dispute is well known to the parties. the question of proof not being really in dispute does not arise. In such a situation it cannot be contended that the area claimed or can the land in dispute be described as uncertain – See Etiko v. Aroyewun (1959) 4 FSC 129; (1959) SCN LR 308; Osho v. Ape (1998) 8 NWLR (Pt. 562) 492. In the circumstances of this case the identity of the land in dispute cannot he described as uncertain since both parties know and have accepted it as the land in dispute.
— Karibi-Whyte JSC. Engineer Bayo Akinterinwa & Anor V. Cornelius Oladunjoye (SC.98/94, 7 April 2000)
The court below was therefore right, in my view, in holding that this could not be so in that 2nd Respondent who derived his title from the Respondent cannot set up a root of title different from that of his Vendor. He must either sink or swim with him, it being that a Vendor can only pass to the purchasers whatever title he has. See Fasoro v. Beyioku (1988) 2 NWLR (Pt. 76) 263.
— Dike & Ors. V. Francis Okoloedo & Ors. (SC.116/1993, 15 Jul 1999)
Click the icons to like, follow, and join JPoetry