EGWU V. ANUMENE (2025) 12 NWLR (PT. 2000) 329
ON DETERMINATION OF PRIORITY OF TITLE TO LAND
Where there are competing interests, the first in time prevails or where two equities are equal, the first in time prevails. In other words, where there is a grant of the same land to two people, the earlier grant is superior to and better than the later one. In the instant case, as at the time the suit commenced, none of the parties acquired statutory title over the disputed parcel of land. Their evidence must therefore be determined based on what was available at the commencement of the case. The nature of the facts of the case as issues were joined during trial was such that the respondent could not rely on customary and statutory grant of land at the same time. At trial, the respondent relied on customary grant in line with Owanta Idumu-Etor native law and customs having paid the customary kola fee of N300.00. Thus, the Court of Appeal misconceived the law when it held that the respondent had proved his case since exhibit “L” was a registered instrument. The appellants registered their title with the community first and so were first in time, two elders of the community gave evidence in that regard. Their own land was part of the larger land belonging to the community and the trial court was correct in finding that they proved title to the portion of land claimed. The fact that the respondent perfected his title at the Lands Registry, Asaba in 2013 did not automatically entitle him to declaration of title. Indeed, placing both evidence side by side, it is clear that the 1st appellant’s title acquired in 1973 from his father was the better title being first in time.
[Luke v. R.S.A.P.D.A. (2023) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1871) 221; Ojo v. Azama (2001) 4 NWLR (Pt. 702) 57; Finnih v. Imade (1992) 1 NWLR (Pt.219) 511; Ogunyanwo v. Oluwole (2009) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1167) 391; Ajibulu v. Ajayi (2014) 2 NWLR (Pt.1392) 483 referred to.]
(Pp. 386, paras. B-E; 387-388, paras. H-C)
SKYE BANK PLC V. ADEGUN (2024) 15 NWLR (PT. 1960) 1
ON WHETHER A PARTY WOULD BE ALLOWED TO BENEFIT FROM HIS WRONGFUL ACT
It is an inveterate rule of equity of great antiquity that equity will operate to prevent a party from benefiting from his or her wrongful act. In this case, it would be oppressive and unjust to the employee to award him or her damages on a basis prescribed in the contract of employment for termination of his employment in breach of that contract. To limit the damages payable by the employer to one month salary in lieu of notice would amount to enabling the employer to benefit from his or her wrongful act. (P. 30, paras. A-B).