32
DUNG v. RAILWAY PROPERTY MGT CO. LTD CITATION: (2018) LPELR-45378(CA) In the Court of Appeal In the Jos Judicial Division Holden at Jos ON THURSDAY, 14TH JUNE, 2018 Suit No: CA/J/65/2014 Before Their Lordships: ADAMU JAURO Justice, Court of Appeal UCHECHUKWU ONYEMENAM Justice, Court of Appeal HABEEB ADEWALE OLUMUYIWA ABIRU Justice, Court of Appeal Between AUGUSTINE DUNG - Appellant(s) And RAILWAY PROPERTY MANAGEMENT CO. LTD - Respondent(s) RATIO DECIDENDI (2018) LPELR-45378(CA)

(2018) LPELR-45378(CA) - lawpavilionpersonal.comlawpavilionpersonal.com/ipad/books/45378.pdf · state in his pleading the original founder of the land, how he founded the land, the

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: (2018) LPELR-45378(CA) - lawpavilionpersonal.comlawpavilionpersonal.com/ipad/books/45378.pdf · state in his pleading the original founder of the land, how he founded the land, the

DUNG v. RAILWAY PROPERTY MGT CO. LTD

CITATION: (2018) LPELR-45378(CA)

In the Court of AppealIn the Jos Judicial Division

Holden at Jos

ON THURSDAY, 14TH JUNE, 2018Suit No: CA/J/65/2014

Before Their Lordships:

ADAMU JAURO Justice, Court of AppealUCHECHUKWU ONYEMENAM Justice, Court of AppealHABEEB ADEWALE OLUMUYIWA ABIRU Justice, Court of Appeal

BetweenAUGUSTINE DUNG - Appellant(s)

AndRAILWAY PROPERTYMANAGEMENT CO. LTD - Respondent(s)

RATIO DECIDENDI

(201

8) LP

ELR-45

378(

CA)

Page 2: (2018) LPELR-45378(CA) - lawpavilionpersonal.comlawpavilionpersonal.com/ipad/books/45378.pdf · state in his pleading the original founder of the land, how he founded the land, the

1. EVIDENCE - PROOF OF TITLE TO LAND: Ways by which ownership/title to land maybe proved; whether a plaintiff needs to prove all the five ways"It is now trite that five modes are utilised in establishing title to land and in this, thecase of IDUNDUN V. OKUMAGBA (1976) 0 - 10 SC has been very outstanding andthose methods are:1. Traditional evidence.2. Production of documents of title which are duly authenticated.3. Acts of selling, leasing, renting out all or part of the land or farming on it or on aportion thereof.4. Acts of long possession and enjoyment of the land, and5. Proof of possession of connected or adjacent land in circumstances rendering itprobable that the owner of such connected or adjacent land would, in addition be theowner of the land in dispute.SOGUNRO & ORS V. YEKU & ORS (2017) LPELR - 41905 (SC); FALEYE & ORS. V. DADA& ORS. (2016) LPELR - 40297 (SC). Proof of any one of the ways listed above issufficient to grant a declaration of title to land. ORIANZI V. AG RIVERS STATE & ORS.(2017) LPELR-41737 (SC)."Per ONYEMENAM, J.C.A. (Pp. 11-12, Paras. C-B) - read incontext

2. EVIDENCE - TRADITIONAL EVIDENCE/HISTORY: What is required of a personrelying on evidence of traditional history in an action for declaration of title to land"It is trite that a party seeking for a declaration of title to land, who relies ontraditional history as proof of his root of title, must plead same sufficiently. He muststate in his pleading the original founder of the land, how he founded the land, theparticulars of the intervening owners through whom he claims. Where a party has notgiven sufficient information in his pleadings as regards the origin or ownership of theland and the line of succession to himself, he has just laid foundation for the failure ofhis claim. ANYAFULU & ORS. V. MEKA & ORS. (2014) LPELR - 22336 (SC); HYACINTHANYANWU V. ROBERT ACHILIKE MBARA & ANOR. (1992) 5 SCNJ 90; IDUNDUN V.OKUMAGBA (1976) 9 - 10 SC 224; ATANDA V. AJANI (1989) 3 NWLR (PT. III) 511.In the herein case the Appellant pleaded ownership of the land in dispute byinheritance in the following manner: "At the trial the Plaintiff shall contend that heinherited the farm land from his own father by name Davou Lung who had alsoinherited same from his own father by name Pam Kadung together with his ownbrother Chung Kareng both of whom were the only male children of the first settler onthe land in dispute by name Kadong." Paragraph 4 of the Appellant's amendedstatement of claim.The Appellant did not in his averment in the pleading attempt to state the originalfounder of the land and how the land was founded whether by conquest,deforestation, outright gift etc. He merely stated that his grand father Pam Kadungfirst settled on the land without averring how he so came to settle on the land indispute. This does not satisfy the requirement of the law in proof of title by traditionalhistory. I hold that the trial Court was right to so hold."Per ONYEMENAM, J.C.A. (Pp.12-13, Paras. B-E) - read in context

(201

8) LP

ELR-45

378(

CA)

Page 3: (2018) LPELR-45378(CA) - lawpavilionpersonal.comlawpavilionpersonal.com/ipad/books/45378.pdf · state in his pleading the original founder of the land, how he founded the land, the

3. EVIDENCE - ORAL/DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE: Whether oral evidence must be ledin respect of documentary evidence"On the issue that no evidence was led in relation to Exhibit 'A'. The Appellant'scounsel rightly submitted that documentary evidence where admissible is the bestform of evidence. AKINBISADE V. STATE (2006) 27 NSCQR PAGE 743; BUNGE V.GOVERNOR OF RIVERS STATE (2006) 27 NSCQR PAGE 46; SKYE BANK PLC & ANOR. V.AKINPELU (2010) LPELR-SC.38/2003; INTERDRILL (NIG) LTD. & ANOR. V. UBA PLC(2017) LPELR-SC.4/2007. This notwithstanding, the learned counsel for the Appellantmisconceived the issue herein. The learned trial Judge did not hold that Exhibit 'A'needed oral evidence to prove it or to support it, the learned trial Judge expungedExhibit 'A' for two reasons. The first which I have held he was in error is that the saidexhibit was not pleaded.The second is that no evidence was led to the Exhibit 'A' with the claim of theAppellant. This is not the same as saying that the Appellant needed to lead evidencein further prove of Exhibit 'A' as contended by the Appellant' counsel.The position of the law is that it is the duty of a party who has tendered a document inCourt in support of his case to specifically through oral evidence link or tie up thedocument to the purpose for which it was tendered in evidence for such document tobe evaluated and ascribed probative value by the Court. It is not the duty of the Courtto investigate documents placed before it to ascertain the purpose for which it wastendered in evidence. A party who did not lead evidence to tie up document he hastendered before a Court is deemed not to have talked to the document but merelydumped the document on the Court and in which case the document would not beaccorded probative value. It is immaterial the way and manner the document wasadmitted in evidence. Even when a document was properly admitted in evidence andmost useful in the determination of the case, once there is no admissible oralevidence to link up the document with the purport for which it was tendered andrelate same to the case; then the document will not add value to the case of the partybecause the document though may speak for itself after oral evidence has led to itsproper admission in proceedings, but before then, oral evidence must be called tospeak to it at the initial stage of the proceedings to avoid the ailment of dumping thesame on the Court. EJIOGU V. ONYEAGUOCHA (2006) ALL FWLR (PT. 317) 467;ARABAMBI V. ADVANCE BEV. IND. LTD. (2006) ALL FWLR (PT. 295) 581; LUMATRONNIGERIA LTD. & ANOR. V. FIRST CITY MONUMENT BANK PLC. (2016) LPELR-CA/L/860/2013.The learned counsel for the Appellant was under erroneous impression that by virtueof Sections 218 and 219 of the Evidence Act, 2011 as amended, since Exhibit 'A' wastendered by an official witness who was merely subpoenaed to tender the samewithout giving oral evidence, oral evidence was not required for any reason withregard to placing Exhibit 'A' properly before the Court for it to accrue probative value.The issue as I have explained above is that of tying Exhibit 'A' to the purpose forwhich it relates to the claim of the Appellant in which case Sections 218 and 219 ofthe Evidence Act are not relevant to this case. Actually, there was no oral evidenceled by the Appellant to link Exhibit 'A' with the purpose for which it was tendered. Noevidence to tie Exhibit A to the case and pleadings of the Appellant. Accordingly, Ihold that the learned trial Judge was right when he expunged Exhibit 'A' for lack ofevidence from the Appellant to tie the same to his claim by adducing oral evidencethat will make clear the purpose of the exhibit by linking it up to the facts placedbefore the Court."Per ONYEMENAM, J.C.A. (Pp. 22-25, Paras. B-C) - read in context

(201

8) LP

ELR-45

378(

CA)

Page 4: (2018) LPELR-45378(CA) - lawpavilionpersonal.comlawpavilionpersonal.com/ipad/books/45378.pdf · state in his pleading the original founder of the land, how he founded the land, the

4. LAND LAW - ACTS OF POSSESSION AND OWNERSHIP: What a party relying onacts of possession and ownership must prove in a claim for declaration of title to land"Again at paragraphs 5 to 8 of the amended statement of claim the Appellant pleadedownership by possession. In OLUKOYA V ASHIRU (2006) ALL FWLR (PT. 322) 1479; theapex Court gave the third method of proving ownership of land as follows:- "By acts ofselling, leasing, renting out all or part of the land or farming on it or on a portionthereof." The Appellant herein outside listing in the pleadings the names of those hepurportedly sold portions of the land to, never called any of them to give evidence ofsuch sell, lease or renting of the land in dispute. Also the Appellant did not call anyone to give evidence of sharing boundary with him in the land he has been inpossession as his act of ownership. Again I agree with the trial Court that theAppellant did not proof possession as act of ownership of the disputed land to warrantthe award of the disputed land in his favour. Also he did not proof ownership by actsof selling, leasing, renting out all or part of the land or farming on it or on a portionthereof. The Appellant also failed to tender in evidence the judgment he allegedlyobtained against Nigerian Railway Corporation at the Federal High Court. All thesewere fatal to the claim of the Appellant. Rather on its part, the Respondent by theevidence of DW1 and DW2, sustained that the property in issue belonged to NigerianRailway Corporation by virtue of the vesting order of 1956 which vested the land indispute to the Corporation. At page 105 lines 1 to 11, DW2 stated that the land wasacquired Pursuant to the Nigerian Railway Corporation (Vesting of Land) Order 1956.The DW2 also said "The land was acquired essentially for the purpose of laying RailTracks, building or erection of Station, Stationary building such as Ware Houses,Running Shade, Offices and Residential Quarters, etc.The lands are used for granting of leases and licenses to attract revenue for theRailway Corporation and there is a master vesting plan." He described the MasterVesting Plan N. R. 9 running from Kafanchan to Jos. He identified the Master Vestingplan at page 30 of a book. The above evidence was in no way contradicted. The issueof whether compensation was paid or not was not made an issue at the trial Court, itcannot therefore be considered in this appeal. There is also no evidence before theCourt of the revocation of the Vested Order. In the light of the above I hold the viewthat the Respondent established its title in view of the evidence adduced by it andmet the requirements of law by the production of Exhibits "B", "B1" & "B2"; andadducing evidence to link up the exhibits with its case at the trial Court. The weight ofthe Respondent's evidence on the imaginary scale was heavier than that of theAppellant.Accordingly, I hold that the learned trial Judge was right when he said the Appellantfailed to proof title to the land in dispute and adjudged that the Respondent has abetter title."Per ONYEMENAM, J.C.A. (Pp. 13-16, Paras. E-B) - read in context

(201

8) LP

ELR-45

378(

CA)

Page 5: (2018) LPELR-45378(CA) - lawpavilionpersonal.comlawpavilionpersonal.com/ipad/books/45378.pdf · state in his pleading the original founder of the land, how he founded the land, the

UCHECHUKWU ONYEMENAM, J.C.A. (Delivering the

Leading Judgment): This is an appeal against the

judgment of the High Court of Plateau State sitting in its

original Jurisdiction at Bukuru, Jos Judicial Division

delivered on 25th November, 2011 in SUIT NO:

PLD/J101/2006 by P. L. LOT, J. wherein the learned trial

Judge entered judgment for the Respondent who was the

Defendant.

On 22nd May, 2006 and 16th February, 2007 respectively

the Plaintiff sought and obtained the leave of the trial Court

to sue in a representative capacity and to amend the name

of the Defendant from RAILWAY PROPERTY COMPANY to

RAILWAY PROPERTY MANAGEMENT COMPANY LTD; also

to amend the Writ of Summons and the Statement of Claim

wherein the Appellant claimed:

1. A declaration that the Plaintiff is the owner of

Customary Right of Occupancy over all the entire land

situate and lying immediately behind the “B” Division

of the Nigeria Police Force Bukuru.

2. A perpetual injunction restraining the Defendant,

its privies or agents from trespassing or otherwise

interfering with the land in dispute.

3. N1,000,000.00 general damages.

1

(201

8) LP

ELR-45

378(

CA)

Page 6: (2018) LPELR-45378(CA) - lawpavilionpersonal.comlawpavilionpersonal.com/ipad/books/45378.pdf · state in his pleading the original founder of the land, how he founded the land, the

4. Cost of this action.

The case of the Appellant is that he is the owner of the

Customary Right of Occupancy of all the land situate and

lying immediately behind the “B” Division of the Nigerian

Police Force Bukuru which measures 2,965 hectares. It was

contended that the Appellant inherited the farm land from

his father by name Davou Lung who also inherited same

from his own father Pam Kadung together with his brother

Chung Kareng who were the only male children of the first

settler by name Kadong. It was also averred that some

parts of the land was sold by the Plaintiff’s father to the

following persons: ECWA GOOD NEWS CHURCH;

AMBASSADOR CINEMA BUKURU; THE “B” DIVISION OF

THE NIGERIA POLICE STATION BUKURU JOS SOUTH

LGC.; MR. BITRUS DEDEIN; who are all in possession till

date.

The Appellant also claimed that he sued and got judgment

against the Nigerian Railway Corporation at the Federal

High Court Jos, after which judgment, the Respondent

started laying claim of ownership to the land in dispute by

using force to harass and chase the Appellant out of the

land. Owing to the attitude of the Respondent’s agents, the

2

(201

8) LP

ELR-45

378(

CA)

Page 7: (2018) LPELR-45378(CA) - lawpavilionpersonal.comlawpavilionpersonal.com/ipad/books/45378.pdf · state in his pleading the original founder of the land, how he founded the land, the

Appellant made report against them at the Police Station

“B” Division Bukuru who advised them to go to Court,

whereupon they instituted this action.

The Respondent on its own part denied the Appellant’s

claim and contended in their statement of defence and

counter claim that the Appellant has no title over the land

in dispute because by vesting order the Nigerian Railway

Corporation the parent corporation of the Respondent since

1956 has the Statutory Title of all lands 7.5ft on either side

of Railway line including where the Appellant claims and

over the years the Respondent has been using the land for

overriding public purposes.

That the Respondent which is a subsidiary of Nigeria

Railway Corporation manages vast areas of Railway lands,

landed properties throughout Nigeria including the

disputed land. It was contended that the Respondent was

not a party in the case at the Federal High Court which

judgment was obtained ex parte and was later set aside.

They denied harassing or chasing or using force on the

Appellant or any one and urged the Court to dismiss the

claim. In the counter claim of the Respondent, it was

3

(201

8) LP

ELR-45

378(

CA)

Page 8: (2018) LPELR-45378(CA) - lawpavilionpersonal.comlawpavilionpersonal.com/ipad/books/45378.pdf · state in his pleading the original founder of the land, how he founded the land, the

contended that the Appellant was trespassing into its land

and alienating the same to third parties. The Respondent in

its counter claim sought declaration that the Respondent

being the subsidiary of the Nigerian Railway Corporation

the rights and privileges and appurtenance is vested on it

to the exclusion of the Appellant; perpetual injunction

restraining the Appellant, himself, his heirs, servants,

agents or representatives from trespassing or continuing

the act of trespass on the disputed land situate and lying

behind “B” Division of the Nigeria Police Force Bukuru Jos

Plateau State and damages of N1,000,000.00 for trespass

for unlawful entry and alienation to third parties without

the consent of the Respondent. Following the death of the

Plaintiff (Ibrahim Bot) he was substituted with Augustine

Dung.

At the close of evidence and addresses of counsel to the

parties, the learned trial Judge entered judgment for the

Respondent. The Appellant being dissatisfied with the

judgment of the trial Court has now appealed to this Court.

Relevant processes were filed and exchanged for the

appeal to become ripe for hearing.

4

(201

8) LP

ELR-45

378(

CA)

Page 9: (2018) LPELR-45378(CA) - lawpavilionpersonal.comlawpavilionpersonal.com/ipad/books/45378.pdf · state in his pleading the original founder of the land, how he founded the land, the

On 20th March, 2018 while G. G. Achi Esq. with R. N.

Wuyep & S. K. Mancha appeared for the for Appellant, T. J.

J. Danjuma Esq. with C. N. Bitrus appeared for Respondent.

Mr. Achi adopted and relied on the Appellant’s Brief

deemed properly filed and served on 16th February, 2017,

and Reply Brief deemed properly filed and served on 20th

March, 2018. He urged the Court to allow the appeal. In

response Mr. Danjuma adopted and relied on the

Respondent’s Brief filed 23rd January, 2018 and deemed

properly filed and served the same day in urging the Court

to dismiss the appeal.

In the Appellant’s brief prepared by Mr. G.G. Achi, the

following 3 issues were distilled for the determination of

the appeal.

1. “Whether the learned Judge of the trial High Court

was right in holding that the Defendant (now the

Respondent) has better title to the land than the

Plaintiff (now the Appellant) in spite of the

overwhelming evidence led by the Appellant.

2. Whether in view of the importance of Exhibit A

which was a file that contains detailed information

and documents regarding the disputed land, the trial

High Court was right to have expunged it from its

5

(201

8) LP

ELR-45

378(

CA)

Page 10: (2018) LPELR-45378(CA) - lawpavilionpersonal.comlawpavilionpersonal.com/ipad/books/45378.pdf · state in his pleading the original founder of the land, how he founded the land, the

records on the ground that no oral evidence was led

on same.

3. Whether a document relevant to a case tendered

and admitted in evidence as in this case exhibit A

needs further evidence on same before the Court can

give probative value to it.”

On their part, in the Respondent’s brief Mr. Tolu Omatsola

raised the following 3 issues for determination.

i) “Whether the Learned trial Judge of the Lower

Court was right in holding that the Defendant has a

better title to the land than the Plaintiff now

Appellant.

ii) Whether the lower Court was right to have

expunged Exhibit “A” from its records on the ground

that no oral evidence was led on same.

iii) Whether the Lower Court was right in holding that

Exhibit “A” needs further evidence before the Court

can give probative value to it.”

The issues formulated by the counsel to the parties say the

same thing. I shall adopt the issues as formulated by the

Respondent’s counsel to determine the appeal as the same

is more elegantly phrased. I will resolve issue 1 separately

and issues 2 and 3 together.

6

(201

8) LP

ELR-45

378(

CA)

Page 11: (2018) LPELR-45378(CA) - lawpavilionpersonal.comlawpavilionpersonal.com/ipad/books/45378.pdf · state in his pleading the original founder of the land, how he founded the land, the

ARGUMENTS ON ISSUE 1

Mr. Achi submitted on who the onus of proof rests in civil

actions. He relied on: EWO V. ANI (2004) 17 NSCQR

PAGE 36 AT 56. He noted the position of the law that title

to land can be proved not only by traditional history but by

four other means which he listed. He cited: ALLI V.

ALESINLOYE (2000) FWLR (PT. 15) PAGE 2610;

IDUNDUN V. OKUMAGBA (1976) 9 - 10 SC 227.

The learned counsel submitted that at the trial Court the

Appellant proved his title by traditional history. He referred

to the evidence of PW 1 at page 93 lines 14 to 22 and page

94 lines 1 to 7 of the record. He also referred the Court to

the evidence of PW2 at page 95 lines 1 to 19 of the record.

He contended that the evidence of the Appellant on

traditional history and the land that shares boundaries with

the land in dispute was not controverted. He submitted that

traditional evidence which is not contradicted and found by

the Court to be cogent can support a claim for declaration

of title. EWO V. ANI (SUPRA) AT PAGE 57. He argued

that the trial Court should have relied on the above

referred evidence to enter judgment for the Appellant. He

relied on: Section 131 of the

7

(201

8) LP

ELR-45

378(

CA)

Page 12: (2018) LPELR-45378(CA) - lawpavilionpersonal.comlawpavilionpersonal.com/ipad/books/45378.pdf · state in his pleading the original founder of the land, how he founded the land, the

Evidence Act 2011 as amended; AFRIBANK NIGERIA

LIMTED V. MOSLAD INTERPRISES LIMITED (2008)

ALL FWLR (PT. 421) PAGES 877; NITEL PLC V. AYU

(2008) ALL FWLR PT. 411 page 904.

Mr. Achi contended that assuming without conceding that

the land was vested on Nigerian Railway Corporation, the

evidence on record suggests that the Appellant is the

owner of the disputed land excluding the rail lines and 7

feet both ways from it. He also argued that from the

evidence of the Appellant at the trial Court the size of land

they claim is 2,965 hectares as contained in the site plan.

Again, he argued that from the evidence of the traditional

ruler that the government did not write him about the

alleged acquisition and the fact that there is no evidence of

compensation, it means that the land in dispute if truly

acquired was not acquired as provided by the law in which

case the vesting was invalid. He relied on: PROVOST V.

DR. EDUN (2006) NSCQR PAGE 37 AT 395; L.S.D.P.C.

V. BANIRE (1992) 5 NWLR (PT.234) AT 620.

He urged the Court to resolve the issue in favour of the

Appellant.

In response, Omatsola argued that the trial Court based its

decision on the evidence adduced by both

8

(201

8) LP

ELR-45

378(

CA)

Page 13: (2018) LPELR-45378(CA) - lawpavilionpersonal.comlawpavilionpersonal.com/ipad/books/45378.pdf · state in his pleading the original founder of the land, how he founded the land, the

parties. He referred to the contention of the Respondent at

the trial Court that the land in dispute was vested on the

Nigerian Railway Property Management Corporation in

1955 by virtue of Section 35 (1) of the Nigerian Railway

Corporation Act, a fact that he alleged was never

controverted under cross- examination by the Appellants.

On the other hand, it was his contention that the case of

the Appellant was that the land in dispute which he failed

to give a proper description of, was the subject of family

inheritance. The learned counsel submitted that this

position of the Appellant was rightly discountenanced by

the trial Court when it held in its judgment that the

pleadings of the plaintiff were bereft of the requisite

particulars for grant of title based on traditional history. He

referred to page 125 of the record.

On whether compensation was paid, the learned counsel

for the Respondent argued that compensation was not

made an issue at the trial Court. He submitted that the

onus was on the Appel lant to prove upon the

preponderance of evidence that he was entitled to the

declaration of title to the land in dispute. He cited:

9

(201

8) LP

ELR-45

378(

CA)

Page 14: (2018) LPELR-45378(CA) - lawpavilionpersonal.comlawpavilionpersonal.com/ipad/books/45378.pdf · state in his pleading the original founder of the land, how he founded the land, the

MOGAJI V. CADBURY NIG. LTD. (1985) 2 NWLR (PT.

7) 393; ADEOSUN V. JIBESIN (2001) 11 NWLR (PT.

724) 290 AT 306; ODOFIN V. AYOOLA (1984) 11 SC

72 AND OKAFOR V. IDIGO (1984) 1 SCNLR 481.

He further submitted that the law is well established and

settled that where a person relies on traditional history as

his root of title, the onus is on him to prove the root of title,

names and history of his ancestors. He should lead

evidence to establish same without any missing link. He

relied on: ANYANWU V. MBARA (1992) 5 NWLR (PT.

242) 386, AKINLOYE V. EYIOLA (1968) 2 NMLR 92,

OWOADE V. OMITOLA (1988) 2 NWLR (PT. 77) 413.

He also contended that the Evidence of PW1 at page 113

lines 16-18 is to the effect that the land in dispute was used

for cultivation and at a point some parts were sold, but the

Appellant failed to adduce evidence that the land in dispute

was sold, he also failed to call those owning intervening

land to testify or tender any documents to buttress that

fact. He submitted that this failure is fatal to his claim for

title to land in dispute based on traditional evidence. Mr.

Omatsola equally submitted that the Appellant failed to

show with

10

(201

8) LP

ELR-45

378(

CA)

Page 15: (2018) LPELR-45378(CA) - lawpavilionpersonal.comlawpavilionpersonal.com/ipad/books/45378.pdf · state in his pleading the original founder of the land, how he founded the land, the

clarity and certainty before the trial Court the boundaries

of the land claimed. He relied on: IORDYE V. IHYAMBE

(1993) 3 NWLR (PT. 280) 197 AT 207, OKE V. EKE

(1982) 12 SC 218 AT 246.

The learned counsel for the Respondent argued that the

case of the Appellant when juxtaposed with that of the

Respondent shows a heavier preponderance of evidence in

favour of the Respondent. He noted the aspects of the

Respondents that made the justice scale tilt in the

Respondent’s favour and urged the Court to resolve the

issue in favour of the Respondent.

RESOLUTION OF ISSUE 1

It is now trite that five modes are utilised in establishing

title to land and in this, the case of IDUNDUN V.

OKUMAGBA (1976) 0 - 10 SC has been very outstanding

and those methods are:

1. Traditional evidence.

2. Production of documents of title which are duly

authenticated.

3. Acts of selling, leasing, renting out all or part of

the land or farming on it or on a portion thereof.

4. Acts of long possession and enjoyment of the land,

and

5. 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.

(201

8) LP

ELR-45

378(

CA)

Page 16: (2018) LPELR-45378(CA) - lawpavilionpersonal.comlawpavilionpersonal.com/ipad/books/45378.pdf · state in his pleading the original founder of the land, how he founded the land, the

11

(201

8) LP

ELR-45

378(

CA)

Page 17: (2018) LPELR-45378(CA) - lawpavilionpersonal.comlawpavilionpersonal.com/ipad/books/45378.pdf · state in his pleading the original founder of the land, how he founded the land, the

SOGUNRO & ORS V. YEKU & ORS (2017) LPELR –

41905 (SC); FALEYE & ORS. V. DADA & ORS. (2016)

LPELR – 40297 (SC). Proof of any one of the ways listed

above is sufficient to grant a declaration of title to land.

ORIANZI V. AG RIVERS STATE & ORS. (2017)

LPELR-41737 (SC).

It is trite that a party seeking for a declaration of title to

land, who relies on traditional history as proof of his root of

title, must plead same sufficiently. He must state in his

pleading the original founder of the land, how he founded

the land, the particulars of the intervening owners through

whom he claims. Where a party has not given sufficient

information in his pleadings as regards the origin or

ownership of the land and the line of succession to himself,

he has just laid foundation for the failure of his

claim.ANYAFULU & ORS. V. MEKA & ORS. (2014)

LPELR – 22336 (SC); HYACINTH ANYANWU V.

ROBERT ACHILIKE MBARA & ANOR. (1992) 5 SCNJ

90; IDUNDUN V. OKUMAGBA (1976) 9 – 10 SC 224;

ATANDA V. AJANI (1989) 3 NWLR (PT. III) 511.

12

(201

8) LP

ELR-45

378(

CA)

Page 18: (2018) LPELR-45378(CA) - lawpavilionpersonal.comlawpavilionpersonal.com/ipad/books/45378.pdf · state in his pleading the original founder of the land, how he founded the land, the

In the herein case the Appellant pleaded ownership of the

land in dispute by inheritance in the following manner: “At

the trial the Plaintiff shall contend that he inherited the

farm land from his own father by name Davou Lung who

had also inherited same from his own father by name Pam

Kadung together with his own brother Chung Kareng both

of whom were the only male children of the first settler on

the land in dispute by name Kadong.” Paragraph 4 of the

Appellant’s amended statement of claim.

The Appellant did not in his averment in the pleading

attempt to state the original founder of the land and how

the land was founded whether by conquest, deforestation,

outright gift etc. He merely stated that his grand father

Pam Kadung first settled on the land without averring how

he so came to settle on the land in dispute. This does not

satisfy the requirement of the law in proof of title by

traditional history. I hold that the trial Court was right to so

hold.

Again at paragraphs 5 to 8 of the amended statement of

claim the Appellant pleaded ownership by possession. In

OLUKOYA V ASHIRU (2006) ALL FWLR (PT. 322)

1479; the apex Court gave the third method of proving

ownership of

13

(201

8) LP

ELR-45

378(

CA)

Page 19: (2018) LPELR-45378(CA) - lawpavilionpersonal.comlawpavilionpersonal.com/ipad/books/45378.pdf · state in his pleading the original founder of the land, how he founded the land, the

land as follows:- "By acts of selling, leasing, renting out

all or part of the land or farming on it or on a portion

thereof.” The Appellant herein outside listing in the

pleadings the names of those he purportedly sold portions

of the land to, never called any of them to give evidence of

such sell, lease or renting of the land in dispute. Also the

Appellant did not call any one to give evidence of sharing

boundary with him in the land he has been in possession as

his act of ownership. Again I agree with the trial Court that

the Appellant did not proof possession as act of ownership

of the disputed land to warrant the award of the disputed

land in his favour. Also he did not proof ownership by acts

of selling, leasing, renting out all or part of the land or

farming on it or on a portion thereof. The Appellant also

failed to tender in evidence the judgment he allegedly

obtained against Nigerian Railway Corporation at the

Federal High Court. All these were fatal to the claim of the

Appellant.

Rather on its part, the Respondent by the evidence of DW1

and DW2, sustained that the property in issue belonged to

Nigerian Railway Corporation by virtue of the

14

(201

8) LP

ELR-45

378(

CA)

Page 20: (2018) LPELR-45378(CA) - lawpavilionpersonal.comlawpavilionpersonal.com/ipad/books/45378.pdf · state in his pleading the original founder of the land, how he founded the land, the

vesting order of 1956 which vested the land in dispute to

the Corporation. At page 105 lines 1 to 11, DW2 stated that

the land was acquired Pursuant to the Nigerian Railway

Corporation (Vesting of Land) Order 1956. The DW2 also

said “The land was acquired essentially for the purpose of

laying Rail Tracks, building or erection of Station,

Stationary building such as Ware Houses, Running Shade,

Offices and Residential Quarters, etc.

The lands are used for granting of leases and licenses to

attract revenue for the Railway Corporation and there is a

master vesting plan.” He described the Master Vesting Plan

N. R. 9 running from Kafanchan to Jos. He identified the

Master Vesting plan at page 30 of a book. The above

evidence was in no way contradicted. The issue of whether

compensation was paid or not was not made an issue at the

trial Court, it cannot therefore be considered in this appeal.

There is also no evidence before the Court of the revocation

of the Vested Order. In the light of the above I hold the

view that the Respondent established its title in view of the

evidence adduced by it and met the requirements of law by

the production of

15

(201

8) LP

ELR-45

378(

CA)

Page 21: (2018) LPELR-45378(CA) - lawpavilionpersonal.comlawpavilionpersonal.com/ipad/books/45378.pdf · state in his pleading the original founder of the land, how he founded the land, the

Exhibits “B”, “B1" & “B2”; and adducing evidence to link

up the exhibits with its case at the trial Court. The weight

of the Respondent’s evidence on the imaginary scale was

heavier than that of the Appellant.

Accordingly, I hold that the learned trial Judge was right

when he said the Appellant failed to proof title to the land

in dispute and adjudged that the Respondent has a better

title. I resolve issue 1 in favour of the Respondent.

SUBMISSIONS ON ISSUES 2 AND 3

Mr. Achi for the Appellant submitted that these issues

should be answered in the negative. He noted that Exhibit

A is file number 63463/S.9/22 with C. of O. No 9452

brought by an official witness on subpoena. He referred to

page 98 lines 1 to 15 and page 99 lines 4 to 8 of the record.

He further referred to Sections 15(a) and 15(b) of the

Evidence Act, 2011 as amended for what the Court should

take into account in assessing evidence before it. He

equally relied on Section 218 of the Evidence Act 2011 on

when a person is summoned to produce a document in a

proceeding and; Section 219 of the Evidence Act (supra) on

the status of a

16

(201

8) LP

ELR-45

378(

CA)

Page 22: (2018) LPELR-45378(CA) - lawpavilionpersonal.comlawpavilionpersonal.com/ipad/books/45378.pdf · state in his pleading the original founder of the land, how he founded the land, the

person just subpoenaed to produce document in a

proceeding.

Upon the above provisions of the law referred to, the

learned counsel for the Appellant argued that Exhibit "A"

which was produced by an official witness from the Plateau

State Ministry of Lands, Survey and Town Planning by

subpoena; and Counsel in the matter at the trial by consent

tendered it from the bar and same was admitted in

evidence and so marked, that Exhibit "A" does not need

oral evidence to support it before the trial Court would

accord probative value and consider same in its decision.

He referred to the holding of the learned trial Judge at

page 126 lines 26 and 27; and page 127 lines 1 to 3 of the

record. The learned counsel also invited the Court to the

pleadings at page 20 of the record particularly paragraph 3

of the Amended statement of claim lines 4 to 7; page 43 of

the record paragraph 6 lines 9 to 15 and paragraph 8 from

lines 23 to 33 both of which is part of the pleadings as

contained in the Reply to Defendant's Statement of Defence

and counter claim. Furthermore, he referred to counsel’s

address at page 70 wherein he reiterated the importance of

Exhibit 'A'.

17

(201

8) LP

ELR-45

378(

CA)

Page 23: (2018) LPELR-45378(CA) - lawpavilionpersonal.comlawpavilionpersonal.com/ipad/books/45378.pdf · state in his pleading the original founder of the land, how he founded the land, the

Mr. Achi brought emphasis to the above pages of the

record to bring home the point that Exhibit 'A' formed part

of the pleading of the Appellant at the trial Court, and as

such the learned trial Judge was in error when he expunged

it (Exhibit A) from the record.

He submitted that documentary evidence in most cases do

not need further prove by way of oral evidence since they

are regarded as the best evidence that can be relied upon

and cannot be contradicted by oral evidence in most

instances as it speaks for itself. He cited: AKINBISADE V.

STATE (2006) 27 NSCQR PAGE 743; BUNGE V.

GOVERNOR OF RIVERS STATE (2006)27 NSCQR

PAGE 46.

The learned counsel finally urged the Court to resolve the

issues in favour of the Appellant and to allow the appeal.

Mr. Omatsola learned counsel for the Respondent

submitted that the answer to the two issues is in

overwhelming affirmative and urged the Court to so hold.

He referred to the amended statement of claim of the

Appellant to contend that Exhibit A was not pleaded by the

Appellant, that what was pleaded was a site plan. He

therefore submitted that Exhibit A is at variance with the

Appellant’s pleadings and goes to no issue.

18

(201

8) LP

ELR-45

378(

CA)

Page 24: (2018) LPELR-45378(CA) - lawpavilionpersonal.comlawpavilionpersonal.com/ipad/books/45378.pdf · state in his pleading the original founder of the land, how he founded the land, the

He cited: MOJEED SUARA YUSUF V. MADAM IDIATU

ADEGOKE & ANOR. (2007) 4 SCNJ 77 AT 87 TO 88;

EZE V. ATASIE (2000) 10 NWLR (PT. 676) 470;

EGBUE V. ARAKA (1988) 3 NWLR (PT. 84) 598.

On the issue that Exhibit A was admitted by the trial Court

without objection, it was the learned counsel for the

Respondent’s submission that admission of a document is

one thing and the weight to be attached to it another. He

maintained that since no evidence was adduced in support

of Exhibit A by the Appellant the trial Court was right to

expunge and discountenance the said Exhibit. He urged the

Court to resolve issues 2 and 3 in favour of the Respondent;

dismiss the appeal and uphold the decision of the trial

Court.

RESOLUTION OF ISSUES 2 AND 3

The genesis of these issues is the holding of the learned

trial Judge at page 126 last paragraph and page 127 lines 1

to 8 that:

"I have said earlier in this judgment that exhibit "A"

which is file no. C of O 9454 tendered by the plaintiff

from the Bar without tying same to any evidence or

pleading, since the exhibit is at variance with the

pleadings and evidence it will not have value and it is

19

(201

8) LP

ELR-45

378(

CA)

Page 25: (2018) LPELR-45378(CA) - lawpavilionpersonal.comlawpavilionpersonal.com/ipad/books/45378.pdf · state in his pleading the original founder of the land, how he founded the land, the

hereby discountenanced because it is contrary to the

issue joined and therefore goes to no issue worthy of

consideration. See the case of: ALLI V. ALESINLOYE

(2000) FWLR (PT. 15) PAGE 2610. Exhibit ‘A’”

At page 126 lines 12 to 17 of the record, the trial

Court held:

“Exhibit ‘A’ was tendered by the Plaintiff’s counsel

from the Bar. The Exhibit is a file with C. of O. 9434

with the name of Nigerian Railway Corporation. The

Plaintiff only dumped the file and no more, there is

no reference made on the file, moreso, this file was

not pleaded and there is no evidence led on the file

Exhibit ‘A’. This file is of no use to the Plaintiff’s

claim. The file is hereby expunged.”

Based on the above holding, the Appellant to show that

Exhibit ‘A’ formed part of his pleadings, referred the Court

to the under reproduced paragraphs of his pleadings as

follows:

Page 20 of the record paragraph 3 of the Amended

statement of claim lines 4 to 7 reads thus:

"The plaintiff hereby pleads the site plan of the land

as drawn by official of the Plateau State Bureau for

20

(201

8) LP

ELR-45

378(

CA)

Page 26: (2018) LPELR-45378(CA) - lawpavilionpersonal.comlawpavilionpersonal.com/ipad/books/45378.pdf · state in his pleading the original founder of the land, how he founded the land, the

Lands Survey and Town Planning, Jos.”

Page 43 of the record paragraph 6 lines 9 to 15 of the

Reply to Defendant's Statement of Defence and counter

claim reads thus:

"It shall be the contention of the Plaintiff that the

only portion of the land in dispute given to the

Nigerian Railway Corporation the parent body to the

Defendant is the land on which the Rail line passed as

indicated in the C of 0 with number 9454. Notice to

produce the said C of O is hereby given to the

Defendant."

Page 43 of the record paragraph 8 from lines 23 to 33 of

the Reply to Defendant's Statement of Defence and Counter

Claim reads thus:

“8. The plaintiff hereby pleads the Nigerian Railway

Corporation’s (the parent company of the Defendant)

application for the Rail Line which passes through the

land in dispute, the C. of O. with number 9454 and all

other documents connected to the land in dispute as

kept by the Plateau State Ministry of Land, Survey

and Town Planning - the successor to ministry of land

and survey, Northern Region of Nigeria. Notice to

produce is hereby given to the Defendant to produce

at the hear ing o f th i s su i t a l l the above

mentioned documents."

21

(201

8) LP

ELR-45

378(

CA)

Page 27: (2018) LPELR-45378(CA) - lawpavilionpersonal.comlawpavilionpersonal.com/ipad/books/45378.pdf · state in his pleading the original founder of the land, how he founded the land, the

From paragraph 8 at page 43 of the record, the Appellant

clearly pleaded Exhibit ‘A’ and gave the Respondent notice

to produce same leading to the production and tendering of

Exhibit ‘A’ from the Bar. The learned trial Judge was

therefore in error when he held that the Appellant did not

plead Exhibit ‘A’.

On the issue that no evidence was led in relation to Exhibit

‘A’. The Appellant’s counsel rightly submitted that

documentary evidence where admissible is the best form of

evidence. AKINBISADE V. STATE (2006) 27 NSCQR

PAGE 743; BUNGE V. GOVERNOR OF RIVERS STATE

(2006) 27 NSCQR PAGE 46; SKYE BANK PLC &

ANOR. V. AKINPELU (2010) LPELR-SC.38/2003;

INTERDRILL (NIG) LTD. & ANOR. V. UBA PLC (2017)

LPELR-SC.4/2007. This notwithstanding, the learned

counsel for the Appellant misconceived the issue herein.

The learned trial Judge did not hold that Exhibit ‘A’ needed

oral evidence to prove it or to support it, the learned trial

Judge expunged Exhibit ‘A’ for two reasons. The first which

I have held he was in error is that the said exhibit was not

pleaded.

22

(201

8) LP

ELR-45

378(

CA)

Page 28: (2018) LPELR-45378(CA) - lawpavilionpersonal.comlawpavilionpersonal.com/ipad/books/45378.pdf · state in his pleading the original founder of the land, how he founded the land, the

The second is that no evidence was led to the Exhibit ‘A’

with the claim of the Appellant. This is not the same as

saying that the Appellant needed to lead evidence in

further prove of Exhibit ‘A’ as contended by the Appellant’

counsel.

The position of the law is that it is the duty of a party who

has tendered a document in Court in support of his case to

specifically through oral evidence link or tie up the

document to the purpose for which it was tendered in

evidence for such document to be evaluated and ascribed

probative value by the Court. It is not the duty of the Court

to investigate documents placed before it to ascertain the

purpose for which it was tendered in evidence. A party who

did not lead evidence to tie up document he has tendered

before a Court is deemed not to have talked to the

document but merely dumped the document on the Court

and in which case the document would not be accorded

probative value. It is immaterial the way and manner the

document was admitted in evidence. Even when a

document was properly admitted in evidence and most

useful in the determination of the case, once there is no

23

(201

8) LP

ELR-45

378(

CA)

Page 29: (2018) LPELR-45378(CA) - lawpavilionpersonal.comlawpavilionpersonal.com/ipad/books/45378.pdf · state in his pleading the original founder of the land, how he founded the land, the

admissible oral evidence to link up the document with the

purport for which it was tendered and relate same to the

case; then the document will not add value to the case of

the party because the document though may speak for

itself after oral evidence has led to its proper admission in

proceedings, but before then, oral evidence must be called

to speak to it at the initial stage of the proceedings to avoid

the ailment of dumping the same on the Court. EJIOGU V.

ONYEAGUOCHA (2006) ALL FWLR (PT. 317) 467;

ARABAMBI V. ADVANCE BEV. IND. LTD. (2006) ALL

FWLR (PT. 295) 581; LUMATRON NIGERIA LTD. &

ANOR. V. FIRST CITY MONUMENT BANK PLC. (2016)

LPELR-CA/L/860/2013.

The learned counsel for the Appellant was under erroneous

impression that by virtue of Sections 218 and 219 of the

Evidence Act, 2011 as amended, since Exhibit ‘A’ was

tendered by an official witness who was merely subpoenaed

to tender the same without giving oral evidence, oral

evidence was not required for any reason with regard to

placing Exhibit ‘A’ properly before the Court for it to

accrue probative value. The issue as I have explained above

is that of tying Exhibit ‘A’ to

24

(201

8) LP

ELR-45

378(

CA)

Page 30: (2018) LPELR-45378(CA) - lawpavilionpersonal.comlawpavilionpersonal.com/ipad/books/45378.pdf · state in his pleading the original founder of the land, how he founded the land, the

the purpose for which it relates to the claim of the

Appellant in which case Sections 218 and 219 of the

Evidence Act are not relevant to this case. Actually, there

was no oral evidence led by the Appellant to link Exhibit ‘A’

with the purpose for which it was tendered. No evidence to

tie Exhibit A to the case and pleadings of the Appellant.

Accordingly, I hold that the learned trial Judge was right

when he expunged Exhibit ’A’ for lack of evidence from the

Appellant to tie the same to his claim by adducing oral

evidence that will make clear the purpose of the exhibit by

linking it up to the facts placed before the Court.

I therefore resolve issues 2 and 3 in favour of the

Respondent.

Conclusively, Appeal herein lacks merits, the same fails and

is dismissed. I affirm the Judgment of the High Court of

Plateau State delivered on 25th November, 2011 in SUIT

NO: PLD/J101/2006 by P. L. LOT, J.

No Order as to costs.

ADAMU JAURO, J.C.A.: I have had the opportunity of

reading in advance the lead judgment just delivered by my

learned brother, UCHECHUKWU ONYEMENAM, JCA. I am

in

25

(201

8) LP

ELR-45

378(

CA)

Page 31: (2018) LPELR-45378(CA) - lawpavilionpersonal.comlawpavilionpersonal.com/ipad/books/45378.pdf · state in his pleading the original founder of the land, how he founded the land, the

agreement with the reasoning and conclusion reached, that

the appeal is lacking in merit and should be dismissed. I

adopt the said judgment as mine and hereby dismiss the

appeal,

I subscribe to consequential orders made in the lead

judgment.

HABEEB ADEWALE OLUMUYIWA ABIRU, J.C.A.: I

have had the privilege of reading the lead judgment

delivered by my learned brother, Uchechukwu

Onyemenam, JCA. His Lordship has considered and

resolved the issues in contention in this appeal. I agree

with the reasoning and abide the conclusions reached

therein.

26(2

018)

LPELR

-4537

8(CA)

Page 32: (2018) LPELR-45378(CA) - lawpavilionpersonal.comlawpavilionpersonal.com/ipad/books/45378.pdf · state in his pleading the original founder of the land, how he founded the land, the

Appearances:

G. G. Achi with him, R. N. Wuyep & S. K. ManchaFor Appellant(s)

T. J. J. Danjuma with him, C. N. Bitrus ForRespondent(s)

(201

8) LP

ELR-45

378(

CA)