When Does The Power To Review Evidence Evaluated By Trial Court Accrue To The Appellate Court?

PRACTICE AREA: EVIDENCE

INTRODUCTION

The appellate courts usually have the power to review evidence already evaluated by the trial court. But is this power exercisable in all instances? In the instant case, OKORONKWO, J.C.A. in his pronouncement on whether or not the trial judge has carried out the duty placed upon him to evaluate evidence placed before it in a trial proceeding commented that “The trial Chief Judge, from the record, appear to me to have performed the role of a trial Court in this case quite satisfactorily because as it was said in Congress for Progressive Change (CPC) vs. Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) & 41 Ors. (2011) 12 SC (Pt. V) 80.

“There is however a distinct difference between the role of a trial Court and that of an appellate Court in the area of evaluation of evidence. It is the trial Court which alone has a Primary function of fully considering the totality of evidence placed before it, ascribe probative value to it, put same on the imaginary Scale of Justice to determine the party in whose favour tilts, make the necessary finding of fact flowing therefrom, apply the relevant Law to the findings and come to a logical conclusion.” Thereby giving a glimpse into what is expected of a trial judge in relation to evaluation of evidence placed before it in a trial proceeding.

He went further to say that where the trial Court has performed its evaluatory role very well, there is little left for the appellate court to do. In his words: “It seems obvious that the trial Court performed the above role creditably and in such a situation ”there is little left for the appellate to do in the circumstance. This is because it is only when a trial Court fails in its duty to evaluate and make findings that an appellate Court will bear the toga of a trial Court to review, evaluate and make findings, as empowered by the Provision of Section 16 of the Court of Appeal Act”. See Purification Technique Nig. Ltd. Vs. Rufai Jubril & 9 Ors. (2012) 6 S.C. (pt. II) 1.

By inference, when an appellate court is called upon to review, evaluate and make findings in respect of evidence adduced in a trial, whether or not the appellate court will do same depends largely on whether the trial Court has failed to carry out its evaluatory duties in respect of the evidence. Consequently, it is only when a trial Court fails in its duty to evaluate and make findings based on the evidence before it that the power of the appellate Court to review, evaluate and make findings will become exercisable. Where the trial court has carried out a proper evaluation and application of the evidence before it, an appellate Court cannot and will not interfere by way of reviewing the evidence adduced.

FACTS OF THE CASE

The claimant (herein appellant) sued for Statutory Right of Occupancy in respect of a parcel of land. The Land in dispute originally belonged to the appellant’s family having been founded by their forebear Koleoso. It devolved on the successors of Koleoso including the appellant. The appellant’s case was that the appellant Koleoso family has always been in exclusive possession of the vast portion of land, exercising all forms of acts of ownership or possession thereon either directly or through tenants on the land and enjoyed quiet possession until sometime in December 2005 when the 1st respondent along with Law enforcement agents came to forcefully eject appellant’s family from the land destroying portion thereof with crops thereon and thereby claiming that the land had been acquired for the 2nd respondent who had granted sub-lease to the 1st respondent.

It was the case of the appellant that the land, the subject matter of this suit, was never acquired by Government. That there was no Notice of Revocation of the appellant’s family’s right of occupancy and that no compensation was never paid or received by the family in respect of the land. It was further contended for the appellant’s family that no member of the family ever had any negotiation for the purpose of transferring or for the acquisition of the land in dispute.

The crux of respondents’ case was that though the parcel of land, the subject matter of the suit, originally belonged to the appellants, the appellant’s family have been divested of all interest in the land by virtue of the acquisition by the Ogun State Government and the payment of compensation therefor by the Ogun State Government who later granted a Certificate of Occupancy to the 2nd respondent who made a sub-lease to the 1st respondent.

Upon hearing the parties and witnesses called by them and after examining the facts and documents in the case, the learned trial Chief Judge accepted that the requirements of the Land Use Act regarding acquisition of land and payment of compensation were complied with and that having received compensation, the appellant’s interest in the land had become extinguished. Therefore, by its judgment delivered on Tuesday the 31st day of July, 2012 by the Chief Judge, the High Court of Ogun State found the claimant’s claims unmeritorious and refused same, dismissing the claim of the Claimant/ appellant.

It was the aforesaid judgment of the High Court of Ogun State that gave rise to this current appeal.

ISSUE(S) FOR DETERMINATION

The issues for determination as formulated by the appellant in his notice of appeal are:
1. Whether, the land in dispute is covered by Exhibit ‘C’ rather than Exhibit ‘D’. Ground 6.
2. Whether there was any valid acquisition of the land in dispute capable of extinguishing the claimant’s title over same to predicate its allocation to the Defendants. Grounds 2, 4 & 9.
3. Whether from the oral and documentary evidence before the Court, the claimant had been paid compensation in respect of the land in dispute or any part thereof. Grounds 1, 5 and 8.
4. Whether there was any sale of the land in dispute or any part thereof by the claimant upon which the defendants can rely to defeat the claimant/appellant’s title. Grounds 3 and 7.

This, according to the Court of Appeal, is a call on them to review the evidence adduced and evaluated at the trial Court.

HELD

There was no reason to interfere with the evaluated evidence. All the four issues raised in the appeal by the appellant were each resolved against the appellant. The appeal was consequently held to be without merit and was accordingly dismissed.

RATIO DECIDENDI

• EVIDENCE – EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE: Duty of trial judge to evaluate evidence and nature of the duty of an appellate court in reviewing such evaluation on appeal

“The trial Chief Judge, from the record, appear to me to have performed the role of a trial Court in this case quite satisfactorily because as it was said in Congress for Progressive Change (CPC) vs. Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) & 41 Ors. (2011) 12 SC (Pt. V) 80.

“There is however a distinct difference between the role of a trial Court and that of an appellate Court in the area of evaluation of evidence. It is the trial Court which alone has a Primary function of fully considering the totality of evidence placed before it, ascribe probative value to it, put same on the imaginary Scale of Justice to determine the party in whose favour tilts, make the necessary finding of fact flowing therefrom, apply the relevant Law to the findings and come to a logical conclusion.”

It seems obvious that the trial Court performed the above role creditably and in such a situation ”there is little left for the appellate to do in the circumstance. This is because it is only when a trial Court fails in its duty to evaluate and make findings that an appellate Court will bear the toga of a trial Court to review, evaluate and make findings, as empowered by the Provision of Section 16 of the Court of Appeal Act”. See Purification Technique Nig. Ltd. Vs. Rufai Jubril & 9 Ors. (2012) 6 S.C. (pt. II) 1.

In this appeal, the trial Court does not seem to have fallen into any error in its primary duty neither has it failed in any cognition of its essential duty. The issues formulated by the appellant have been reviewed and the judgment has clearly resolved those issues in relation to the evidence as pleaded and documents as tendered. In such situation as this, an appellate Court cannot and will not interfere.” Per OKORONKWO, J.C.A. (Pp. 12-14, Paras. G-C)

OTHER REMARKABLE JUDGMENTS AND SOME OF THEIR RATIOS EKUNDAYO & ANOR v. ABERUAGBA (2017) LPELR-42428(CA)

• PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – SIGNING OF COURT PROCESS(ES): Effect of a court process signed in the name of a law firm

“…The arguments of the respondents are indeed persuasive but as it is, the law on the point now is as espoused by the Supreme Court in Okafor vs. Nweke (2007) A FWLR Pt. 308 Page 1016 @ 1026 – 1027.

As it stands now and until the Supreme Court in its wisdom decides to vary or overrule that decision it remains binding its effect being to nullify a writ of summons or other originating process begun by a firm of Legal Practitioners not registered in the roll of Legal Practitioners as stipulated in the Legal Practitioners Act.

In a similar case Chief Fatai Adegbiyi & Ors. vs. Chief Sikiru Balogun & Ors. Appeal No. Ca/I/4/2012 unreported Court of Appeal Ibadan delivered on 22nd January, 2016 raising similar issue as in this appeal, I said as follows:-

The various High Court Civil Procedure Rules provide copiously for mode of commencing civil actions by writ of summons. Upon the requisite endorsements such writ of summon shall be signed by the intending Claimant or his Legal Practitioner.

In practice, most suits are signed off by a Legal Practitioner and who a Legal Practitioner is, is aptly defined in Section 24 of the Legal Practitioners Act 1975 as a person entitled in accordance with the provisions of this act to practice as a barrister or as a barrister and solicitor, either generally or for the purposes of any particular office or proceedings.
In this case, the Writ of Summons was initiated or signed by Peluola, Lalude & Co., a firm of solicitors which is not a person entitled to practice as a barrister and solicitor and whose name is not on the roll of Barristers and solicitors in the Supreme Court of Nigeria.

The cases of Okafor vs. Nweke (2007) 10 NWLR (pt. 1043) 521 at 534 and Peak Merchant Bank vs. Nigeria Deposit Insurance Corporation (2011) 12 NWLR (pt. 1261) 253 and Ogundele vs. Agiri & Anor. (2009) 12 S.C. (pt. 1) 135 at 165 have been cited in support and the consensus of judicial opinion from the apex to the base seem to be that such defect or omission rendered the entire proceedings a nullity ab initio, the defect being irreparable.

The reason, in my view, why the entire proceedings become a nullity is that it was not begun at all. If it was not begun, there is nothing to cure or remedy as the learned counsel for the 1st – 4th respondents tearfully pleaded. Being a nullity, it does not exist. As it does not exist, every superstructure founded or erected thereupon rests on nothing and therefore is vitiated. The superstructures include the proceedings and the judgment of the lower Court the subject of this appeal. They all rest on nothing and are therefore vitiated by being set aside.

I am bound by the latest Supreme Court Judgment on the point and of course our own judgments which followed the Supreme Court. In the same case we did in this Court my learned brother Obietonbara Daniel Kalio JCA said thus:-

A law firm cannot file processes in Court, it is only a legal practitioner whose name is on the roll of Legal Practitioners that can. Okafor vs. Nweke (2007) 10 NWLR (part 1043) p. 521 and a host of other cases have made this position absolutely clear. A legal practitioner who has filed a process in Court in the name of a law firm will do well to file a fresh process in the name of a legal practitioner. To proceed in the name of a law firm will, unfortunately, only result in a cul-de-sac.

The Cul-de-Sac, is that the exercise however extensive or labourious, it may have been result in a nullity and futility.”Per OKORONKWO, J.C.A. (Pp. 15-18, Paras. B-B)

• PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – SIGNING OF COURT PROCESS(ES): Effect of a court process signed in the name of a law firm
“The main issue on the appeal is about the effect of a Writ of Summons or other originating process begun by a firm of legal practitioner not registered in the roll of Legal Practitioners Act. The Writ which was issued by Chief Olusegun Otayemi & Co. is not a person entitled to practice as a barrister and solicitor. The name of the firm is not on the roll of Barristers and Solicitors in the Supreme Court of Nigeria. See Okafor v. Nweke (2007) 10 NWLR (pt. 1043) pg. 521 at 534.

The entire proceedings on the writ is a nullity as the lower Court has no jurisdiction to entertain it.”Per FASANMI, J.C.A. (Pp. 18-19, Paras. E-B)

• PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – SIGNING OF COURT PROCESS(ES): Effect of a court process signed in the name of a law firm
“I agree that the originating processes having been signed by a law firm, rather than a legal practitioner whose name is on the roll of barristers and solicitors in the Supreme Court of Nigeria, the proceeding is a nullity.”Per IYIZOBA, J.C.A. (P. 19, Paras. D-E)

ADEOSUN & ORS v. LANIYONU (2017) LPELR-42427(CA)

• PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – SIGNING OF COURT PROCESS(ES): Whether the issue of signing of legal processes can be raised at any time
“It is thus obvious that the cases cited by Mr. Olatunji and his views are inapplicable because even though there are similar provisions in the Rules of Courts, the issue have been provided for in the Legal Practitioners Act is not merely a procedural matter. Further, being a jurisdictional matter, it can be raised at any stage of the proceedings, even in the Supreme Court. Many cases which had been concluded in the Court of first instance have been set aside as nullities even in the Supreme Court because originating processes were signed by a law firm. The issue is thus not a mere technicality as argued by learned counsel for the Appellant.” Per IYIZOBA, J.C.A. (P. 14, Paras. C-F)

• PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – SIGNING OF COURT PROCESS(ES): Proper person to sign a legal process/effect of legal documents signed/franked by a law firm
“I find it hard to believe that there is a legal practitioner in Nigeria today who is not conversant with the long line of authorities handed down by the Apex Court and its attitude to the signing of originating processes by law firms. The knowledge of the full facts of the case of OKAFOR V NWEKE as the fons et origo of this entire saga is the beginning wisdom for legal practitioners in Nigeria. Yet it is obvious from the fact that Mr. Olatunji did not even get the name right that his knowledge in this notorious area of our legal discourse is very limited. I do not intend to go into any lengthy discussion on this matter as so much has been written and so many judgments delivered by both this Court and the Apex Court that it is now quite tedious.
The appropriate point to start however is by referring to the case of MADUKOLU VS. NKEMDILIM (1962) 2 SCNLR 341. It is the locus classicus for the trite principle that for a Court to be competent to assume jurisdiction three conditions must be satisfied:

1. The Court must be properly constituted as regards number and qualification of members of the bench.
2. The subject matter of the case must be within the jurisdiction of the Court.
3. The case must come before the Court initiated by due process of law and upon fulfillment of all conditions precedent to the exercise of jurisdiction.
If a case before a Court is not initiated by due process of law and upon fulfillment of any condition precedent to the exercise of its jurisdiction, the Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the matter. Section 2(1) of the Legal Practitioners Act Cap. 207, Laws of the Federation, 2004 provides as follows:

“Subject to the provisions of this Act, a person shall be entitled to practice as a barrister and solicitor if and only if his name is on the roll.”
Section 24 of the Act defines a legal practitioner thus:
“Legal Practitioner means a person entitled in accordance with the provisions of this Act to practice as a barrister and solicitor either generally or for the purposes of any particular office or proceedings.”

The effect of the above provisions which are not rules of Court but statutory is that only legal practitioners whose names are enrolled in the Register of Legal practitioners in the Supreme Court of Nigeria are entitled to practice law in Nigeria.

All Court processes must therefore be signed by such legal practitioners whose names are so registered. Failure to comply means that a condition precedent for the Court to assume jurisdiction has not been complied and thus the Court is deprived of jurisdiction to hear the suit.

It is now well established by the above Statute and a plethora of authorities that a Court process can only be signed by a legal practitioner and that whenever a Court process is signed by a law firm, it renders the process incompetent and is bound to be struck down. If the process is an originating process, it deprives the Court of jurisdiction to entertain the matter. See the following cases:

REGISTERED TRUSTEES, THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH V. R. AKINDELE (1967) NMLR 263; OKAFOR V. NWEKE (2007) 10 NWLR (PT. 1043) 521; SLB CONSORTIUM LTD V. NNPC (2011) 9 NWLR (PT. 1252) 317; BRAITHWAITE V. SKYE BANK PLC. (2012) 12 SC (PT. 1) 1; ALAWIYE V. OGUNSANYA (2012) LPELR-19661(SC); F.B.N. PLC VS. MAIWADA (2013) 5 NWLR (PT. 1348) 444 @483 F-G; HAMZAT V. SANNI & ORS (2015) LPELR-24302(SC).” Per IYIZOBA, J.C.A. (Pp. 11-14, Paras. C-B)

ADEBAYO v. WEMA BANK PLC & ORS LPELR-42426(CA)
• MORTGAGE – AUCTION SALE: Acts which will affect the validity of an auction sale
“Firstly, the trial judge found as a fact that there was a breach of the auctioneers Law Section 19 which declares that:
(1) No sale by auction of any land shall take place until after at least seven days’ public notice thereof made at the principal town of the district in which the land is situated, and also at the place of the intended sale. The notice shall be made not only by printed or written documents, but also by beat of drum or such other method intelligible to uneducated persons as may be prescribed, or, if not prescribed, as the Secretary to the Local Government of the area where such sale is to take place may direct, and shall state the name and place of residence of the seller.

(2) Any person contravening any of the provisions of Sub-section (1) of this section shall be liable to a fine of ten thousand naira.
What this means is that contrary to the law, the auctioneer, 2nd respondent went with officials of the 1st respondent and evidence indicates that 3rdrespondent was present and while they pasted the auction Notice on the property and at the same time purported to conduct the auction sale to the 3rd respondent.

The import of the Auctioneers law is to publicize the notice of sale in order to make it truly competitive and draw the largest possible participation. It is for the benefit of the public and of course the Mortgagor is not excluded from that public. If the mortgagor is Present, he may bid in his own behalf.

Secondly a large participation at the auction sale may ensure a fairer price even though the mortgagor is not a trustee for that purpose.
Thirdly it is to ensure fairness and eliminate fraud because fraud will in equity vitiate the provision of a statute like Section 125 (1) of the Property and Conveyancing Law because equity will not allow a statute to be used as an instrument of fraud. See L. A. Sheridan, Fraud in equity.

In this case, as the trial judge found, no statutory notice was issued for the auction. No Newspaper advertisement was published. The purported notice was pasted on the property as the auction sale was going on and evidence show that the purchaser 3rd respondent was present. How did he get notice of the intended auction sale if no Public Notice was issued or published? If the purchaser, 3rd respondent could only have known about the sale by the 1st and 2nd respondents i.e. the bank and the auctioneer which is collusion. This is the natural inference to be drawn in the circumstance according to Section 168 of the Evidence Law because there not being any public notice issued as the Law requires, only the 1st and 2nd respondent knew of the impending sale and arranged for the 3rd respondent to attend and purchase. Collusion and fraud. In such circumstance, it is doubtful whether Section 125 (1) of the Property and Conveyancing Law will operate.

Collusion of the respondents is sufficient to taint the sale because the Supreme Court has held that where the action is to set aside a sale of the Mortgaged Property by reason of lack of good faith of the mortgagee or receiver, collusion with the purchaser must be established West African Breweries vs. Savanna Ventures Ltd & Ors (2002) 10 SCM 180.
Collusion in this sense is a fraud and in equity, upon the equitable Principles which are now applicable in any Court, Fraud may be described as an infraction of the rules of fair, dealing an advantage gained by unfair means. See Jowitts Dictionary of English Law.

Learned respondents’ counsel has made heavy weather about absence of pleadings on fraud or collusion or Constructive Fraud, the answer is that constructive notice is knowledge which is imputed to a Party if he omits to make the usual inquiry into the matter or title of the property -See again Jowitts Dictionary of English Law. So the Notice is here imputed by law on the state of the proven facts.

There is a very good authority that before a Mortgagee can pass a good title to a purchaser free from the equity of redemption, the right to the exercise the power of sale under a mortgage must have arisen. See Mr. Segun Babatunde vs. Bank of the North Ltd & 2 Ors (2011) 12 SC (Pt.V) 1.
In a mortgage, the right of sale arises when the Mortgagee has given notice to recall the mortgage by sale. In this case, the trial judge found as a fact that no such notice was given and so the power of sale has not arisen.

In Majekodunmi vs. Co-operative Bank Ltd (1997) 10 NWLR (Pt. 524) 198 at 217 -218 the Court of Appeal Per Adamu JCA Posited thus:-
“As we have seen under the 2nd issue once the power of sales arises and becomes exercisable, its improper or irregular exercise will not make the purchaser’s title impeachable… The auctioneer in the present case was only invited as agent or independent contractor of the 1st Respondent for the purposes of the auction sale and since it was his field of expertise for which he had acquired a license to practice, he should be held responsible in damages for any injury suffered by the appellant for his (i.e. auctioneer) non-compliance with the auctioneer’s law.”
The operative words here are “Once the Power of Sale arises and becomes exercisable.” This means the Power of Sale must first arise and become exercisable before Section 126 (2) of the Property and Conveyancing Law of Oyo State Cap.30 can come into operation to protect the sale.

That Section, i.e. Section 126 (2) of the PCL Oyo State provides thus;-
“Where a conveyance is made in exercise of power of sale conferred by this law, or any enactment replaced by this law, the title of the purchaser shall be impeachable on the ground:
a. That no case had arisen to authorize the sale; or
b. That due notice was not given: or
c. Whether the mortgage was made before or after the commencement of this law, that the power was otherwise improperly or irregularly exercised;
And a purchaser is not, either before or no conveyance concerned to see or inquire whether a case has arisen to authorize the sale, or due notice has been given, or the power or otherwise been properly and regularly exercised; but any person damnified by an unauthorized, or improper, or irregular exercise of the power of shall have his remedy in damages against the person exercising the power.

Where a Conveyance is made in the exercise of a power of sale conferred by this Law, means that the conveyance must have been made pursuant to the power of sale and so where the of sale has not arisen, there can be no conveyance. It is for this reason that it was held in Mr. Segun Babatunde vs. Bank of the North Ltd & 2 Ors (2011) 12 SC (Pt.V)1 that “once the Precondition of notice of sale is given to the mortgage or by the Mortgagee or his agent, preceded by a notice of demand of repayment of money lent to the Mortgagor and the Mortgagee proceeds to sell in good faith, subsequent purchaser in good faith gets a good title and a Court will not interfere in the sale only because the sale did not meet the satisfaction of the Mortgagor.

The preconditions must be met before Section 126 (2) of the Property and Conveyancing Act can be set up. It is not otherwise. Concerning the infraction of Section 19 of the Auctioneers Law of Oyo State, I think the cases refers to by the trial Court are apposite and relevant to the facts of this case where bad faith and collusion surround the entire transaction. Those cases include:-

Oseni vs. AIIC Ltd (1985) 3 NWLR (pt. 11) 229 and Fojule FMBN (2001) 2 NWLR (Pt. 697) at 384. FMB Vs. Babatunde (1999) 12 NWLR (Pt. 632) 683. In these cases, non-compliance with Section 19 of the Auctioneers Law in the sale of Mortgage Property where Seven days’ notice was required but not given were held to render the sales in valid because beyond the non-compliance the omission or non-feasance is indicative of fraud and collusion.

In cases where the decisions were otherwise as in Okwunnakwe vs. Oparah (2000) 16 NWLR (Pt. 687) 334 at 339 -340 Oguchi vs. FMB (1990) 6 NWLR (Pt.156) at 343, the conditions for sale were duly reached and satisfied and the conveyances were made after the right of sale has arisen and so cannot be authority for this case.
The Auctioneers Law in Section 19 Provides thus:

(3) No sale by auction of any land shall take place until after at least seven days’ public notice thereof made at the principal town of the district in which the land is situated, and also at the place of the intended sale. The notice shall be made not only by printed or written documents, but also by beat of drum or such other method intelligible to uneducated persons as may be prescribed, or, if not prescribed, as the Secretary to the Local Government of the area where such sale is to take place may direct, and shall state the name and place of residence of the seller.

(4) Any person contravening any of the provisions of Sub-section (1) of this section shall be liable to a fine of ten thousand naira. The Principal word of the Section is ‘No’ which is also the subject Predicated upon sale not to hold until after seven days Public notice. It is so important for public purposes for it enact that a criminal sanction for defaulting auctioneers. The presumed purpose of the Law is extraneous to the Law itself and does not form part of its normative stipulations. The normative stipulation of a very important regulatory statute as the Auctioneers Law deserves proper interpretation and application to obviate fraud and collusion.

On the issues raised in this appeal which are (1) whether the 3rd respondent is a bonafide purchaser of the Property of the appellant without notice of noncompliance, I hold that there is no bonafides on the part of the 3rd respondent as 3rd respondent appear to be in collusion with the 1st and 2nd respondent in the malfeasance narrated hereinbefore. And as to whether in the circumstances of this case, the appellant had to shown that the 1st respondent acted in bad faith in the sale of the property of the appellant, I agree and hold that the appellant duly established bad faith on the part of 1st respondent in not issuing and serving a demand notice prior to sale and in colluding with the 2nd and 3rd respondent in pasting an auction notice on the property on 22nd September, 2000 and carrying on the sale at the same time, contemporaneously, with the pasting – an aggregation of fraud.”Per OKORONKWO, J.C.A. (Pp. 26-35, Paras. B-A)

• MORTGAGE – AUCTION SALE: Acts which will affect the validity of an auction sale
“There was a clear breach of the provisions of the Auctioneers Law of Oyo State which requires that there be publication before mortgaged property is auctioned in the exercise of the lender’s power to sell under Property and Conveyancing Law. There is also the need to give the mortgagee notice of impending sale of the mortgaged property. In the instant case, the evidence on record discloses that no such publication and notice were issued. The sale consequent thereon was therefore invalid and should be set aside.”Per TSAMMANI, J.C.A. (P. 36, Paras. B-E)

ADEWUNMI & ORS v. ADETAYO & ANOR(2017) LPELR-42424(CA)
• EVIDENCE – PROOF OF TITLE TO LAND: Ways of proving title/ownership of land

“In the the locus classicus IDUNDUN V. OKUMAGBA (1976) 6 & 10 S.C 227 AT 246 the SC laid down the five methods of establishing title to land as follows:
(a) By traditional evidence;
(b) By production documents of title;
(c) By various acts of ownership and possession numerous and positive to warrant the inference of ownership;
(d) By acts of long possession and enjoyment of the land; and
(a) By possession of land adjacent to the land in dispute in such circumstances rendering it probable that the owner of the adjacent land is also the owner of the land in dispute.
The above methods of establishing title to land have been followed in a plethora of authorities including the following:
MOGAJI V. CADBURY NIG LTD (1985) 2 NWLR (PT.7) 393; BALOGUN VS. AKANJI (1988) 1 NWLR (PT.70) P. 301; ONWUGBUFOR V. OKOYE (1996) 1 NWLR (PT. 424) 252; SALAMI V. LAWAL (2008) 14 NWLR (PT. 1108) 546; AYORINDE V SOGUNRO (2012) LPELRSC12/ 2006; FALEYE V. DADA (2016) LPELRSC. 315/2006.” Per IYIZOBA, J.C.A. (P. 18, Paras. A-F)

• EVIDENCE – PROOF OF TITLE TO LAND: Whether a claimant is required to prove all the five methods of proving title to land
“It is not necessary to plead more than one of the above methods to succeed in establishing title to land. Proof of additional methods can only be by way of caution. OJOH V. KAMALU & ORS (2005) 18 NWLR (PT. 958) 523 @ 574-575; LAWSON V. MANUEL (2006) 10 NWLR (PT. 989) 569; NRUAMAH V EBUZOEME (2013)

lawpavilion.com