OBA JUBRIL BOLAJI MARANRO (For himself and on behalf of Maranro Family of Aho-Ogbada) V ALHAJI SALAMI ADEBISI (For himself and on behalf of Laage Family of Ira) -SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA – SC. 282/2008 DECIDED ON THE 25TH OF FEBRUARY 2022

37

[Proof of Title to Land] – [Traditional Evidence]- [How Proved]

ISSUE FOR DETERMINATION:

Whether a party can rely on acts of possession to establish title to land, without first proving the traditional evidence (nature and origin of that possession) which he pleaded.

FACTS:

The Supreme Court was called upon to adjudicate over a matter that traversed three lower Courtsv – the Upper Area Court, Omu-Aran, Kwara State; the High Court of Kwara State, Omu-Aran, sitting in its appellate jurisdiction, and the Court of Appeal, and all three lower Courts found against the Appellant.

The appellant, for himself and on behalf of Maranro Family, filed the suit that led to this Appeal at the Upper Area Court, wherein he claimed that they, himself and other members of the said Family, are the only persons entitled to “Certificate of Occupancy over the land situate, lying and being at Oyun Local Government Area of Kwara State” covering twelve towns and villages; and an order of perpetual Injunction against the Defendants, servants and privies, etc. The Court of Appeal dismissed the apeeal and held that there was no reason to disturb the concurrent findings of the lower courts. The Supreme Court unanimously dismissed the appeal.

HELD:

On five ways by which title to land could be proved:

1. By traditional evidence.
2. By production of documents of title duly authenticated and executed.
3. By acts of ownership extending over a length of time numerous and positive enough as to warrant the inference of true ownership.
4. By acts of long possession and enjoyment.
5. 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.

On Modes of proving title to land and whether claimant can rely on one mode:
There are five ways of proving title to land. A claimant may rely on more than one mode of proving title, if so desired. However, one mode of proving title will suffice if properly established to the satisfaction of the court.

On how to establish the traditional history of land:

To establish the traditional history of land relied on as root of title, a Plaintiff must plead the names of the founder and those after him upon whom the land devolved to the last successor(s) and lead evidence in support without leaving gaps or creating mysterious or embarrassing linkages, which have not been and cannot be explained.

On whether a party can rely on acts of possession to establish title to land, without first proving the traditional evidence (nature and origin of that possession) which he pleaded:

The appellant cannot rely on acts of possession to establish title to land, without first proving the traditional evidence (nature and origin of that possession) which he pleaded.

NIGERIAN CASES REFERRED TO IN THE JUDGMENT:

• ACB v. lhekwoaba (2004) FWLR (PT. 194) 555
• Tapp-lnd. v. Tapp Ind. (1995) 5 NWLR (Pt. 393) 9
• Ekong v. Udoh (2003) All FWLR (Pt. 139) 1576.
• Piaro v. Tenalo (1976) 12 SC 31/37
• Elias v. Omo-Bare (1982) 5 SC 25/57 – 58.
• Okongwu v. NNPC (1989) 3 NSCC 118
• Maersk Line v. Addie Ltd. (2002) 4 SCNJ 433
• Usiobbaifo v. Usiobaifo (2005) 1 SCNJ 227/241
• Ojoh v. Kamalu (2005) 18 NWLR (Pt. 958) 523
• Sanusi v. Amovequn (1992) 4 SCNJ 117
• Ezuchukwu v. Ukachukwu (2004) 17 NWLR (Pt. 902) 227
• Eze v. Atasie (2000) 10 NWLR (Pt. 676) 470 at 482
• Dike v. Nzeka Il (1986) 4 NWLR (Pt. 34) 144
• Emenike v. PDP (2012) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1315) 556
• Dumez Nig. Ltd. v. Nwakhoba (2008) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1119) 361
• Sogunro v. Yeku (2017) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1570) 290
• Eronini v. lheuko (1989) 2 NWLR (Pt. 101) 46
• Ado v. Wusu 4 WACA 96

FULL JUDGMENT

AUGIE, J.S.C. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): 

In its judgment, the trial Upper Area Court reviewed all the evidence, and concluded that while the plaintiff and his witnesses could not tell who and how the villages were founded, the defendant’s witnesses gave a clearer picture of the founder and how they were named. It also considered the other ways to establish title relied on by the appellant and concluded that the plaintiff has failed to establish his act of ownership, and we so hold.

As to proof of title by acts of long possession and enjoyment of land, the court was satisfied that Irra should be older than Aho-Ogbada, and in the light of the subsisting judgment of the High Court of Appeal, Omu-Aran, as affirmed by the Court of Appeal, the defendant, who had been granted declaration of title over all the disputed villages, has a better title. Therefore, the acts of long possession cannot stand in the face of the traditional evidence adduced by both Parties. Possession cannot ground a claim for declaration. This proof fails and we so pronounce.

On proof of possession of adjacent land in circumstances, which render it probable that the owner would also be owner of the disputed land, it held that a declaration that the defendant and other members of Lage Family, Irra, are the only people entitled to Certificate of Occupancy over Aho-Ogbada, in EXH. D07 have been made in a subsisting judgment, and the plaintiff has failed to prove a better title over Aho-Ogbada, the plaintiff cannot be said to be in possession of any adjacent land.

The appellant appealed to the High Court, sitting in its appellate jurisdiction, and in affirming the judgment appealed against, the High Court concluded that:

“There is nothing wrong when the trial Court said that evidence of Olowonjoyin of Onisapa and Jimoh Mogaji Afijagba are more authentic. No doubt, the trial Court was persuaded to have come to that conclusion by what are contained in Exhibit D.07 and since the Judgment remains subsisting, there is nothing wrong in law in doing so. The trial Court could not be accused of demolishing Appellant’s case before considering the totality of the evidence before it nor could it be accused for not seeing the demeanor of Abdulrahim Olowojoyin before relying on his evidence. We found no merit in the Grounds of Appeal and they are hereby dismissed. The judgment of the trial Court is hereby affirmed.”

Dissatisfied with the judgment of the appellate High Court, the appellant then appealed to the Court of Appeal, which held as follows in its own judgment that there was no reason to disturb the concurrent findings of the lower courts. Further dissatisfied with the judgment of the Court of Appeal, which affirmed the decision of the High Court to uphold the judgment of the Upper Area Court, the appellant sought and obtained leave of the Court of Appeal to appeal to the Supreme Court on grounds of mixed law and facts. In dismissing the appeal, the Court noted:

“In this case, the appellant claimed one declaratory relief, the second one is predicated on the success of the declaratory relief, therefore, the law places a legal burden on him, and not on the respondent, to prove to the satisfaction of the Court that he is entitled to the said relief.  See Emenike V. PDP (supra).”

To this end, the appellant must show who his ancestors were and how they came to own and possess the said land and eventually passed it to him. See Ojoh v. Kamalu (supra). The law is that traditional evidence must be cogent; it must also not be contradictory or in conflict with that of the Defendant for the Court to accept it before it would be sufficient to support a claim of title to land. See Sogunro v. Yeku (2017) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1570) 290, Eze v. Atasie (supra).”

Obviously, with the gaping holes in the testimony of the appellant as to who the past hunters in his family were and how they came to own and possess the land in dispute before the first Alaho came to the throne in 1830, it cannot be said that he discharged the onus of him to prove that he, and his family, are the only persons entitled to a Certificate of Occupancy over the land in dispute.

In the circumstances of this case, this appeal is DOA: Dead on Arrival, as the appellant’s case stood no chance of succeeding. The law says that even where a person relies on acts of possession to establish title to land, he must also prove the nature and origin of that possession. See Eronini V. lheuko (1989) 2 NWLR (Pt. 101) 46, wherein Nnaemeka-Agu, JSC, added as follows:

“Hence, in Ado v. Wusu 4 WACA 96, a possession of land by the defendant for nearly 200 years was held not to be enough. Where it is shown that the possession of the land within living memory is as a result of long possession from a period which per se, depends upon evidence of tradition, it is impossible to grant a declaration of title to the land based on the possession in recent times when evidence of tradition is unavailing. In this case, the history narrated by the appellant did not go beyond 1830, and who his forefathers were before 1830, and how they had founded the land were questions left unanswered, therefore, his evidence of traditional history failed.”

This aspect of his evidence having failed, the Appellant is not allowed to rely on acts of possession and ownership to back his claim for title to the land and what is more, this Court cannot delve into any other Issues in this appeal. In the final analysis, this appeal lacks merit, and it is, hereby, dismissed.

The appellant shall pay the respondent costs assessed at One Million Naira.

LIST OF COUNSEL:

O. O. Olowolafe, Esq., Jeremiah O. Akinlaja, Esq., Ayaeluwa Akinlaja, Esq., and Ayotomiwa Apuabi, Esq. –  for the Appellant

Roland Otaru, SAN, with Fatima Mala Atuman, Esq., and J. K. Kolawole Esq. – for the Respondent.