FIRST OPTION MOTORS LTD.
& ANOR. vs. OGUN STATE GOVERNMENT & ORS.(2022) LCN/16680(CA)
ISSUE: LOCUS STANDI-Whether a person who is not the proven owner of land in respect of which notice of acquisition or revocation is issued has locus standi in law to question the validity of the acquisition.
PRINCIPLE:
“The Appellants before the trial Court sought a declaratory relief of title to land. The lower Court found that the Appellants failed to establish its root of title. The land in question was acquired from the customary owners directly by the Appellants. It is settled that in a claim for declaration for title the Claimant has 5 methods to prove title, they are:
(a) Traditional evidence.
(b) Production of documents duly authenticated.
(c) By positive acts of ownership extending over a sufficient length of time.
(d) By acts of long possession and enjoyment of the land.
(e) By proof of possession of connected or adjacent land in circumstances rendering it probable that the owner of such connected or adjacent land would in addition be the owner of the land in dispute.
See the following cases: AYANWALE V. ODUSAMI (2011) LPELR-8143 (SC); AYOOLA VS. ODOFIN (1984) 11 SC 120; EWO VS. ANI (2004) 17 NSC QR 36 26; NDUKUBA VS. IZUNDU (2007) 1 NWLR PT. 1016 PG. 432; NKADO VS. OBIANO (1997) 5 NWLR PT. 503, PG.31; NKWO VS. IBOE (1998) 7 NWLR PT. 558 and ADESANYA VS. ADERONMU (2000) 6 SC PT.11, PG.18.
In their pleadings, the Appellants averred that they got the land from customary owners and called their vendors as CW3 and CW4 and for the identity of the land, they tendered a survey plan C9a-C9d as proof of boundary and location. The Respondents contended that the land in question was acquired by the Government and tendered Notice of Acquisition as Exhibit D1 and names of families compensated as Exhibit D2-D3. The Appellants referred to Exhibit D1 which has the coordinates of the Land acquired by Government and contended that they do not align with the coordinates on their Exhibit C9a-C9d and no member of those listed on Exhibit D2-D3 is from their vendors’ families. The question therefore is whether the land claimed is the same one the Respondent’s claim was acquired. With the survey plans not agreeing or aligning, it presupposes that the land claimed is not the same as the one acquired. With the coordinates, there must have been some overlapping somewhere if the land is the same. It is not possible to have different coordinates over the same land. Bearing is always taken from a particular point that has been so designated and since geographical coordinates are employed, the land must have the same coordinates or some must be the same. The fact of that disparity raises a flag.
The Appellants contended that the lower Court did not evaluate that piece of evidence along the root of title as explained by CW3 additional statement on oath. The response of the Respondents is simple that the Appellants did not establish their root of title and therefore their claim must fail.
Looking at the pleadings of the Appellants in respect of title, the Appellants pleaded their vendors root of title as communities. The lower Court in the judgment said no evidence was presented but it is obvious in the statements of representative of the families who gave their ancestral history and claimed the land and admitted they sold it to the Appellants. They further stated clearly that they were not compensated if the land had been acquired by government. This was not traversed by the Respondent. The ancestral history of a family or community cannot as definite as an individual family history, here, you are considering a group of people united together, clans, family united together as the 3 communities. I disagree with the lower Court that root of title was not established and therefore the claim cannot be granted.
I agree with the Court below that the Appellants not being the customary owners of the land allegedly acquired, it lacks the locus standi to question the validity of the acquisition. See GOLDMARK (NIG) LTD. & ORS. V. IBAFON CO. LTD. & ORS. (2012) LPELR-9349 (SC) wherein the apex Court held thusly: “A person who is not the proven owner of land in respect of which notice of acquisition or revocation is issued has no locus standi in law to seek nullification of the acquisition. See Elegushi v. Oseni (2005) 14 NWLR (Pt. 945) pg. 348.” Per ADEKEYE, JSC.
However, the Appellants’ vendors can challenge the alleged acquisition but they are not parties in the suit at the Court below.
It is trite that the possession of a certificate of occupancy is a rebuttable presumption, a more credible evidence can dislodge a party with a certificate of occupancy. See EZEANAH V. ATTA (2004) LPELR-1198 (SC) wherein the apex Court held thusly: “… a certificate of occupancy properly issued by a competent authority raises the presumption that the holder is the owner in exclusive possession of the land in respect thereof. Such a certificate also raises the presumption that at the time it was issued, there was not in existence a customary owner whose title has not been revoked. The presumption is however rebuttable because if it is proved by evidence that another person had better title to the land before the issuance of the certificate of occupancy then the Court can revoke it. See Osazuwa v. Ojo (1999) 13 NWLR (Pt. 634) 286. See also Atta v. Ezeanah (2000) 11 NWLR (Pt. 678) 363; Shogo v. Adebayo (2000) 14 NWLR (Pt. 686) 121.” Per TOBI, JSC.
The issue of the two surveys plans not aligning means the identity of the land the Appellants are claiming is different from the land the Respondents are considering. Furthermore, the failure to establish the names of the Appellants vendors amongst the list of those compensated is a fundamental defect and that means that the Respondents failed to join issues with the Appellants on those fundamental issues and therefore, the defence failed and the case of the Appellants was not challenged as required by law. It therefore means the findings of the lower Court is perverse and has to be set aside.” Per NIMPAR, JCA.