WHERE COMPETING TITLE, THE ONE WHO SHOWS A BETTER TITLE WINS

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)

WHERE BOTH PARTIES KNOW THE LAND, UNCERTAINTY CANNOT ARISE

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)

WHEN ROOT OF TITLE NEEDS TO BE PROVED

Uche v. Eke (1998) 9 NWLR (Pt. 564) 24 at 35, this court, per Iguh, JSC observed: “In the first place, it has been stressed times without number that it would be wrong to assume that all a person who resorts to a grant as a method of proving his title to land needs do is simply to produce his deed of title and rest his case thereon. Without doubt, the mere tendering of such document of title may be sufficient to prove such grant where the title of the grantor to such land is either admitted or not in dispute. Where, however, as in the present case, an issue has been seriously raised as to the title of such a grantor to the land in dispute, the origin or root of title of such a grantor must not only be clearly averred in the pleadings, it must also be proved by evidence.”

IN A CLAIM FOR DECLARATION TO TITLE TO LAND, THE PLAINTIFF MUST SUCCEED ON THE STRENGTH OF HIS CASE

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)

WAYS TO PROVE OWNERSHIP OF LAND

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

THE ADVANTAGES OF THE REGISTRATION OF TITLE

The advantage of registered title is that the purchaser can discover from the mere inspection of the register whether the vendor has power to sell the land and what the more important incumbrances are except in the case of what may be classified as overriding interest, as contained in s.52 of the Registration of Titles Law, which bind the proprietor of registered land even though he has no knowledge of them and no reference is made to them in the register. Otherwise, a registered owner of land is not affected by notice of any unregistered estate, interest or claim affecting the estate of any previous registered owner, nor is he concerned to inquire whether the terms of any caution or restriction existing before he was registered as owner of such land have been complied with see s.54. Short of rectification of the register carried out in pursuance of s.61, a registered owner’s title is indefeasible. It has been said that a register of title is an authoritative record, kept in a public office, of the rights to clearly defined units of land as vested for the time being in some particular person or body, and of the limitations, if any, to which these rights are subject. With certain exceptions known as ‘overriding interests’, all the material particulars affecting the title to the land are fully revealed merely by a perusal of the register which is maintained and warranted by the State. The register is at all times the final authority and the State accepts responsibility for the validity of transactions, which are effected by making an entry in the register.

— Uwais, JSC. Onagoruwa & Ors. v. Akinremi (2001) – SC.191/1997