A person or Community that had title to a parcel of land before the coming into force of the Land Use Act, 1978 is deemed to be a holder of a right of occupancy, statutory right of occupancy or customary right of occupancy, depending on the status of the land – whether it is in urban area or in non-urban area. See Section 34(2), (3) and (6) and Section 36(2), (3) and (4) of the Land Use Act.
— Wali JSC. Onwuka & Ors. V. Ediala & Anor. (SC.18/1987, 20 January 1989)
SHARE ON
The law is clear that it is not enough for a plaintiff seeking a declaration of title to land to lead evidence to trace his title to a particular person. He must go beyond that to establish by credible evidence the root of that person’s title otherwise title will not be declared in him: See Mogaji v. Cadbury Nigeria Ltd. (1985) 2 NWLR (Pt.7) 393; (1985) 7 SC 59; Ogunleye v. Oni (1990) 2 NWLR (Pt.135) 745; Uche v. Eke (1992) 2 NWLR (pt.224) 433.
— Uwaifo, JSC. Olohunde v. Adeyoju (2000) – SC.15/1995
“A certificate of occupancy issued under the Land Use Act is not conclusive evidence of any interest or valid title to the land in favour of the grantee. It is only a prima facie evidence of such right, interest or title without more, and may, in appropriate cases, be challenged and rendered invalid, null and void. Consequently where it is proved, that another person, other than the grantee of a certificate of occupancy had a better title to the land, the Court may set it aside on the ground that it is invalid, defective or spurious. See also the following decided cases by the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal: Dsungwe Vs Gbishe; Ogunleye Vs Oni (1990) 2 NWLR (Pt. 135) P. 745; Saude Vs Abdullahi; Olohunde Vs Adeyoju and Lababedi Vs Lagos Metal Ind. Ltd (1990) 2 NWLR (Pt. 135) P. 745.”
— I.S. Bdliya, JCA. Umar Ibrahim v Nasiru Danladi Mu’azu & 2 Ors. (2022) – CA/G/317/2019
It is now well settled that in a claim for declaration of title to land, a plaintiff has the burden of proving his case on his own evidence and cannot rely on the weakness of the defendant’s case. If that burden is not discharged, the weakness of the defendant’s case will not help him and proper judgment will be for the defendant. See Kodilinye v. Odu (1935) 2 WACA 336 at 337; Odusanya v. Ewedemi (1962) 2 SCNLR 23, 1 All NLR 320; Atuanya v. Onyejekwe (1975) 3 SC. 161; Bashua v. Maja 11 SC. 143. However a plaintiff can take advantage of and rely upon evidence By the defence which supports his case. See Akinola v. Oluwa 1 SCNLR 352, (1962) WNLR 133. Realizing this principle of law, the learned counsel for the Appellants submitted in his brief that since both parties to the case agreed that the land in dispute was intimately connected with the Edo goddess, and the Chief Priest of Edo goddess had always come from the Appellant’s family, it necessarily followed that there had been a succession of Chief Priests who held the land in trust for the Appellants’ family which proved the root of their title. I do not think that this submission holds any water here. In the first place, the Appellants, apart from mentioning the names of Chief Priests who held that office in their family over the years, did not prove their ownership of the land or that they lived there without any interference, and in the second place, except the admission in the pleadings that the family of the Appellants produced the Chief Priests, no other evidence was given proving any title or ownership by the respondents at the trial. It is an after thought to bring it at this stage and cannot in my view be accepted to prove any root of title by the Appellants. Therefore the Akintola v. Oluwo case (supra) is not relevant here.
— U.A. Kalgo, JSC. Dike & Ors. V. Francis Okoloedo & Ors. (SC.116/1993, 15 Jul 1999)
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)
In a civil claim of title to or ownership of land, for a party to succeed, he must prove his title in one of the five ways laid down in this court’s decision of Idundun vs. Okumagba (1976) 9-10 SC 227 followed by a long line of other decided authorities to the following effect: Proof by traditional evidence Proof by production of documents of title duly authenticated to prove title. Proof by acts of ownership extending over a sufficient length of time, numerous and positive as to warrant the inference that the person is the true owner. Vide Ekpo vs. Ita 11 NLR 68. Proof by acts of long possession and Proof of possession of connected or adjacent land in circumstances probable that the owner of such connected or adjacent land would in addition be the owner of the land in dispute.
— Onu, JSC. Ezennah v Atta (2004) – SC.226/2000
It is now well settled law that in a claim for declaration of title to land, a party claiming title to land must do so by proving with credible evidence one or more of the five methods of proving title to land, namely: A. Evidence of traditional history of title; B. Production of genuine and valid documents of title; C. Acts of Ownership numerous enough; D. Acts of possession over a long period of time and E. Act of possession of adjacent land long enough to make it probable that the owner of the adjacent land is also the owner of the land in dispute. The 1st Appellant and the 1st Respondent, thus had open to them one or more of the above five methods to prove their title to the land in dispute and the law is that proof of any of these methods by credible evidence would be sufficient to ground an action for declaration of title to land.
— B.A. Georgewill, JCA. Anyi & Ors. v. Akande & Ors. (2017) – CA/L/334/2014
Click the icons to like, follow, and join JPoetry