Latest COA Cases on Whether the mere production of Documents of Title to Land is sufficient to prove Title to Land

DAUDA YUGUDA V DANIEL NYIMNYA Appeal no: CA/YL/40/2016 AREAS OF LAW:   APPEAL, LAND LAW, LAW OF EVIDENCE, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURESUMMARY OF FACTS:The Plaintiff/Appellant commenced this action in the High Court of Taraba State sitting in Gembu, claiming a declaration that the acts of the Defendant in building a house on the Plaintiff's land despite protest and warning amounted to acts of trespass, an order of the court vacating/ejecting the Defendant from the Plaintiff's land, perpetual injunction, N1, 000,000.00(One Million Naira) as general damages for trespass among other reliefs.  The Respondent counterclaimed a declaration of title over the disputed land, perpetual injunction restraining the Plaintiff and his privies of whatever description from further trespass or interference with the possession and ownership rights of the Counter claimant an order setting aside or revoking any allocation or approval over the disputed land as same is null and void and not in accordance with the law and due process.  After considering the evidence led by both parties and addresses of learned counsel, the lower court dismissed the claim of the Appellant and the counterclaim of the Respondent. Dissatisfied with the trial court's judgement, the Appellant, pursuant to an order granting extension of time has lodged the instant appeal. HELDAppeal DismissedISSUES FOR DETERMINATIONØ  Whether the trial court's interpretation of section 9 of the Land Use Act was right when it held that the only evidence of a grant of Right of Occupancy is the certificate of Occupancy and that Exhibit D not being a Certificate of Occupancy is not evidence of a grant of Right Occupancy (Distilled from Grounds (i) and (ii) Ø  Whether the payment of allocation fees for the disputed land, the issuance of Exhibit D and the taking of possession of the land by the Appellant conferred any interest in law or equity on the Appellant. (Distilled from Grounds (iii) (iv) & (viii) Ø  Whether the trial court was right when it dismissed the Appellant's case for non payment of compensation. (Distilled from ground (vi) Ø  Whether the identity of the disputed land was in issue at the trial court and if same was, whether the Appellant did not discharge the burden of proving the identity and extent of the disputed land. (Distilled from ground (vii) Ø  Whether the trial court was right when it held that from 1992 when Exhibit D was issued till 2009 the Appellant did nothing on the land. (Distilled from ground (v).RATIONESPROOF OF TITLE TO LAND - WAYS OF PROVING TITLE TO LAND"There are five ways of proving title to land. They are:1.         By traditional evidence 2.         By production of documents of title duly authenticated and executed 3.         By acts of ownership extending over a sufficient lenght of time numerous and positive enough to warrant, the inference of true ownership. 4.         By acts of long possession and enjoyment of the land5.         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. Proof by any one of these methods is enough to establish title. See Aiyeola V. Pedro (2014) 5 SCNJ 422 at 472 – 473". PER J. S.ABIRIYI, J.C.A. PROOF OF TITLE TO LAND - ON WHO LIES THE ONUS OF PROVING TITLE TO LAND"The onus is on the plaintiff to prove his title upon a preponderance of evidence or on the balance of probabilities. He must succeed on the strength of his own case and not on the weakness of the defence except where the defendant's case supports his case. See Aiyeola V. Pedro (supra). PER J. S.ABIRIYI, J.C.A. PROOF OF TITLE TO LAND - WHETHER THE MERE PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS OF TITLE TO LAND IS SUFFICIENT TO PROVE TITLE TO LAND"The production of documents of title is one of the recognised methods of proving title to land but such a document of title must be admissible in evidence and be of such character as to be capable of conferring valid title on the party relying on it. It does not mean that once a claimant produces what he claims an instrument of grant, he is automatically entitled to a declaration that the property which such an instrument purports to grant is his own. Rather, production and reliance on such an instrument inevitably carries with it the need for the Court to inquire into some or all of a number of questions including: (a) whether the document is genuine; (b) whether it has been duly executed, stamped and registered. (c) whether the grantor had the authority and capacity to make the grant; (d) whether the grantor had in fact what he purported to grant; and (e) whether it had the effect claimed by the holder of the instrument. See Dabo V. Abdullahi (2005) 7 NWLR (Pt. 923). PER J. S.ABIRIYI, J.C.A. STATUTORY RIGHT OF OCCUPANCY - GRANT OF STATUTORY RIGHT OF OCCUPANCY "Section 5(1) (a) of the Act provides thus:"5(1)    It shall be lawful for the Governor in respect of land whether or not in an urban area to –(a)Grant statutory right of occupancy to any person for all purposes."Section 9(1) (a) provides thus:"(1) It shall be lawful for the Governor –(a)        When granting a statutory right of occupancy to any person to issue a certificate under his hand in evidence of such right of occupancy."The governor is the only person empowered to allocate or issue a certificate of occupancy in respect of land within his jurisdiction. Thus a letter emanating from the Ministry of Land and Survey conveying approval for the grant of certificate of occupancy to an applicant is mere notice that the applicant would be entitled to a certificate of occupancy provided the conditions stipulated in the letter were fulfilled. See Usman V. Garke (2003) 14 NWLR (Pt. 840) 261". PER J. S.ABIRIYI, J.C.A. IDENTITY OF LAND - ON WHO LIES THE BURDEN OF PROVING THE IDENTITY OF A LAND IN DISPUTE"Where there is a dispute as to the identity of the land in dispute, the burden is on the party claiming title to establish the identity by specific and unequivocal evidence as to its boundaries. See Aiyeola V. Pedro (supra)."PER J. S. ABIRIYI, J.C.A. STATUTES REFERRED TOLand Registration Law Cap 75 Laws of Taraba State 1997Land Use Act 5 Cap 15 Laws of The Federation of Nigeria 2004