When general damages are sought on the basis of trespass to land, they would represent payment for the tort of trespass, not the value of the land; and the land remains at least under the possessory ownership or right of the plaintiff claimant.
— Uwaifo, JSC. Rockonoh v. NTP (2001) – SC.71/1995
SHARE ON
Although generally speaking, a claim for trespass is rooted in exclusive possession or the right to such possession of the land in dispute, once a defendant claims to be the owner of the land in dispute, title to it is put in issue, and in order to succeed, the plaintiff must show a better title than that of the defendant: see Amakor v. Obiefuna (1974) 1 All NLR 119.
– Katsina-Alu, JSC. Dantsoho v. Mohammed (2003)
It has been argued that there is conflict between the common law principle and the provision of the limitation law. I respectfully disagree. One complements the other. They are not conflicting. It is not only in Nigeria that there are limitation laws. There is Limitation Act of 1980 which is a British Act of parliament applicable only to England and Wales. The British Act Limits actions in tort to 6 years. Section 2 of the Act reads: “Time limit for actions founded on tort: ‘An action founded on tort shall not be brought after the expiration of six years from the date on which the cause of action accrued.”
In spite of the above provision, it does not apply to continuing trespass. It is therefore in my respectful view an error to argue that the provision of the various Limitation Laws in Nigeria do not allow for the doctrine of continuing trespass.’”
Per Awotoye, JCA. Chikere & Ors. v Chevron Nigeria Ltd. (2018) LPELR-44123 (CA).
Amakor v. Obiefuna (1974) 1 All N.L.R. (Part 1) at page 128 saying:- “Generally speaking, as a claim of trespass to land is rooted in exclusive possession, all a plaintiff need to prove is that he has exclusive possession, of the land in dispute. But once a defendant claims to be the owner of the land in dispute title to it is put in issue, and, in order to succeed, the plaintiff must show a better title than that of the defendant.”
It is an elementary principle of law that whenever a claim for trespass is coupled with a claim for an injunction, the title of the parties to the land in dispute is automatically put in issue. See Akintola v. Lasupo (1991) 3NWLR (Pt.180) 508 at 515; Abotche Kponuglov. Kodadja(1933)2W ACA24; Okorie v. Udom (1960) 5 FSC 162, (1960) SCNLR 326; The Registered Trustees of the Apostolic Church v. Olowoleni (1990) 6 NWLR (PU58) 514. The position is even much stronger where, as in the present action, the plaintiff claims a declaration that he is the person entitled, as against the defendant, to occupation and possession of the piece or parcel of land in dispute. The present action involves not only damages for trespass and perpetual injunction, but a declaration as to the plaintiff’s entitlement to the occupation and possession of the land in dispute. It cannot be doubted, in these circumstances, particularly having regard to the pleadings filed in the suit and the evidence of the parties, that the title of the parties to the land in dispute is what is primarily in issue in the case. This is simply because the law is well settled that when the issue is as to which of two claimants has a better right to the possession or occupation of a piece or parcel of land in dispute, the law will ascribe such possession and/or occupation to the person who proves a better title thereto. See Aromire v. Awoyemi (1972) 1 All NLR (PU) 10 at 12 Fasoro v. Beyioku (1988) 2 NWLR (Pt.76) 263 etc. In the same vein, where two parties are on land claiming possession, the possession being disputed, trespass can only be at the suit of that party who can show that title of the land is in him. See Awoonor Renner v. Daboh (1935) 2 WACA 258 at 259 and 263 Umeobi v. Otukoya (1978) 4 SC 33.
— Iguh, JSC. Olohunde v. Adeyoju (2000) – SC.15/1995
As an academic proposition of law, anybody not in possession of land cannot sue for trespass to that particular piece of land. Also it is a correct statement of our law that a plaintiff cannot successfully maintain an action both for trespass to a particular piece of land and recovery of possession of the self same land. These two claims are inconsistent and mutually divergent, one being based on the factum of the Plaintiff’s possession and the other on the fact that he is out of possession and then claim recovery of such possession.
– Oputa JSC. Oniah v. Onyia (1989)
An action In trespass Is based on exclusive possession of the land. See Mohammed Ojomu v. Salawu Ajao (1983) 9 S.C. 22; Amakor v. Obiefuna (1974) N.M.L.R. 331; (1974) 3S.C. 66. It lies against the whole world except one who can show a better title. See Aromire & Ors. v. Awoyemi (1972) 2 S.C. 1; Amakor v. Obiefuna (supra) at 77. Trespass is a wrong to possession. It constitutes the slightest disturbance to possession by a person who cannot show a better title. See Abotche Kponugho & Ors. v. Adja Kodadja (1933) 2 WA.C.A. 24 per Lord Alness. In order to succeed, a plaintiff must show that he is the owner of the land or that he had exclusive possession of it. A trespasser does not by the act of trespass secure possession in law from the person against whom he is in trespass. Jimoh Adelakun v. Sabitiyu Oduyele (1972) 6 S.C. 208 at 210. A trespasser without a claim of right is a trespasser ab initio and the onus is on him to prove that he has a better right to possession In order to succeed in the defence. See O. Solomon & Ors. v. A.R. Mogaji & Ors. (1982) 11 S.C. 1. When trespassers knowingly and unlawfully take possession of lands, the defence of laches is not available to them. See Lasupo Akanni & Ors. v. Makanju (1978) 11 & 12 S.C. 13 at 21.
— Obaseki, JSC. Foreign Finance Corp. v Lagos State Devt. & Pty. Corp. & Ors. (1991) – SC. 9/1988
Click the icons to like, follow, and join JPoetry