NWIZI V. OKE (2025) 12 NWLR (PT. 2000) 589
ON EFFECT OF ABANDONMENT OF LAND UNDER CUSTOMARY LAW
Under customary law, land that has been abandoned reverts to the community, allowing it to be reallocated.
In the instant case, the appellant’s father’s extended absence from Ede Achara, as corroborated by DW3 and DW4, constituted abandonment, thus permitting the community to transfer the land to the respondent’s family.
[Eke v. Okwaranyia (2001) 12 NWLR (Pt. 726) 181 referred to.]
(P. 622, paras. G-H)
NWIZI V. OKE (2025) 12 NWLR (PT. 2000) 589
ON NATURE OF VESTING LEGAL TITLE IN RESPECT OF LAND IN A PERSON
The act of vesting legal title in respect of a piece of land in a person is a matter of law to be deduced from the facts and evidence admitted.
[Nasiru v. Abubakar (1997) 4 NWLR (Pt. 497) 32 referred to.]
(P. 623, paras. G-H)
NWIZI V. OKE (2025) 12 NWLR (PT. 2000) 589
ON PRINCIPLE GOVERNING GRANT OF LAND UNDER CUSTOMARY LAW
Once land is granted to a tenant in accordance with native law and custom, full rights of possession are conveyed to the grantee. The only right remaining in the grantor is that of reversion should the grantee deny title or abandon or attempt to alienate the land. An outright grant of land is never to be presumed. It requires the clearest evidence.
[Osegbue v. Ononye (2018) LPELR-45084 adopted.]
(P. 625, paras. C-E)
EGWU V. ANUMENE (2025) 12 NWLR (PT. 2000) 329
ON WHEN COURT CAN DECLARE TITLE TO LAND IN FAVOUR OF DEFENDANT
The court will not declare title in favour of the defendant except where he has filed a counter-claim. For a defendant to get title, he must prove it where the action of a plaintiff seeking declaration of title is dismissed.
Such dismissal, in the absence of a successful counter-claim by the defendant, does not amount to a declaration of any right to the defendant. Therefore, where a plaintiff claims title to land and the court dismisses his claim for failing to prove title, the defendant who has not counter-claimed for declaration of title to the same land does not automatically become entitled to the land.
[Owhonda v. Ekpechi (2003) 17 NWLR (Pt. 849) 326; Ayanru v. Mandilas Ltd. (2007) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1043) 462; Pada v. Galadima (2018) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1607) 436 referred to.]
(Pp. 376–377, paras. G-B)
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)
NWIZI V. OKE (2025) 12 NWLR (PT. 2000) 589
ON ONUS ON CLAIMANT SEEKING DECLARATION OF TITLE TO LAND
The onus in a declaratory action lies on the claimant to substantiate the claim through convincing evidence.
The appellant in the instant case, however, relied disproportionately on perceived weaknesses in the respondent’s case rather than presenting a definitive claim to ownership.
The Court of Appeal, therefore, was correct in affirming the decision of the trial court that the appellant failed to demonstrate the uninterrupted exercise of ownership rights, essential in establishing a declaratory right to the land.
Furthermore, the appellant did not meet the burden of proof required for a declaratory judgment.
[Osuji v. Ekeocha (2009) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1166) 81 referred to.]
(P. 622, paras. D-F)
NWIZI V. OKE (2025) 12 NWLR (PT. 2000) 589
ON DUTY ON PLAINTIFF IN ACTION FOR DECLARATION OF TITLE TO PROVE HIS ROOT OF TITLE
A party who seeks a declaration of title to land must prove his root of title to the land. Where he traces his title to a particular person, he must further prove how that person got his own title or came to have the title vested in him, including where necessary, the family that originally owned the land.
[Archibong v. Edak (2006) 7 NWLR (Pt. 980) 485; Okoko v. Dakolo (2006) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1000) 401; Dike v. Okoloedo (1999) 10 NWLR (Pt. 623) 359; Otanma v. Youdubagha (2006) 2 NWLR (Pt. 969) 337; Mogaji v. Cadbury (Nig.) Ltd. (1985) 2 NWLR (Pt. 7) 393 referred to.]
(Pp. 623-624, paras. H-B)
NWIZI V. OKE (2025) 12 NWLR (PT. 2000) 589
ON WAYS OF PROVING TITLE TO LAND
The five well-recognized ways of proving title to land between two contesting parties are by:
(a) traditional history or evidence; or
(b) documents of title; or
(c) various acts of ownership numerous and positive, and extending over a length of time as to warrant the ownership; or
(d) acts of long enjoyment and possession of the land; and
(e) proof of possession of adjacent land in circumstances which render it probable that the owner of such adjacent land would in addition be the owner of the land in dispute.
A party claiming title to land must show that he acquired his title in any one of the five ways or methods above stated.
In the instant appeal, the appellant in proof of his title to the land in dispute at the trial court called Eze Amadi, a traditional ruler, who testified and tendered “Exhibit B”.
The respondent, on his part, called DW3 and DW4, elders of the community, whose testimonies contradicted that of Eze Amadi.
They attested to the fact that the land in dispute had long been regarded as the property of the respondent’s father.
Their testimony corroborated the respondent’s argument of long, continuous possession without challenge.
There was also evidence on record that the appellant’s father abandoned the land in dispute for over 50 years.
Consequently, the villagers took it and gave it to the respondent’s father.
Thus, the appellant failed to establish better title to the land in dispute to be entitled to the declaratory relief sought.
[Ojoh v. Kamalu (2005) 18 NWLR (Pt. 958) 523; Ajibulu v. Ajayi (2004) 11 NWLR (Pt. 885) 458 referred to.]
(Pp. 624-625, paras. B-C; para. G)
EGWU V. ANUMENE (2025) 12 NWLR (PT. 2000) 329
ON PROOF OF GRANT OR TRANSFER OF TITLE TO LAND UNDER NATIVE LAW AND CUSTOM
By virtue of section 128 of the Evidence Act, 2011, under customary law, a transfer of land either by sale, grant or other mode of transfer of title can be effected orally. However, such transfer effected in writing is not invalid. Where such written document, instrument or memorandum is produced by a claimant, the law will require that witnesses be called to testify as to its existence but not the terms of the document.
(P. 382, paras. F-G)
EGWU V. ANUMENE (2025) 12 NWLR (PT. 2000) 329
ON WHEN IDENTITY OF LAND IN DISPUTE WILL BE IN ISSUE
The identity of the land will be in dispute only when the other party has clearly disputed same. In other words, the requirement of proving the identity of the land in dispute will not be necessary if there is no dispute as to the identity of the land arising from the pleadings.
Thus, the need to prove the identity of the land will be necessary when the defence has raised same in the statement of defence. Thus, where the identity of the land in dispute is known by both parties, the issue of proof of identity of the land will not arise, as in such circumstance, it will be deemed that the defendant has admitted to the identity of the land.
[Offodile v. Offodile (2019) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1698) 189; Adenle v. Olude (2002) 18 NWLR (Pt. 799) 413; Ayanwale v. Odusanmi (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1278) 328; Ezeudu v. Obiagwu (1986) 2 NWLR (Pt. 21) 208 referred to.]
(P. 361, paras. A-D)
EGWU V. ANUMENE (2025) 12 NWLR (PT. 2000) 329
ON HOW TO DISCHARGE BURDEN OF PROOF OF IDENTITY OF LAND IN DISPUTE
The burden of proving the identity of the land in dispute can be discharged by giving oral description of the land or by a survey plan which shows clearly the area to which the plaintiffs’ claim relates.
In other words, the plaintiff may prove the identity of the land he claims by one or even more of the following ways:
(a) By tendering a survey plan which shows the area, size and boundaries of the land he claims; or
(b) By oral description of the land giving such particulars that a surveyor from such description can produce an accurate plan of the land in dispute.
Where the plaintiff relies on a survey plan, it must show clearly the boundaries, location and extent of the land he claims. In other words, it must establish the dimensions of the land, the location and boundaries of the land and other salient or clear features appertaining to the land.
Whichever way the plaintiff may decide to use, the identity of the land must be accurate so that the court may make an order attaching to the land that is without any ambiguity.
[Okpaloka v. Umeh (1976) 9–10 SC 269; Okonkwo v. Okonkwo (2010) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1213) 228; Aiyeola v. Pedro (2014) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1424) 409 referred to.]
(Pp. 361–362, paras. H-D)
EGWU V. ANUMENE (2025) 12 NWLR (PT. 2000) 329
ON WHETHER DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IS NOT A REQUIREMENT OF NATIVE LAW AND CUSTOM OR CUSTOMARY LAW TRANSACTION FOR THE VALIDITY OF SUCH TRANSACTION
Generally, customary law requires no writing for the transfer of land either as part of the transfer or as evidence of it. By native law and custom, no such things as written contracts or conveyances are necessary to affect a valid sale.
The payment of purchase money and the delivery of possession are usually enough. This is not, of course, to say that the use of writing excludes the application of customary law. Indeed, writing is quite commonly employed in customary transactions these days, but the effect of this is not to supplant the forms prescribed by customary law for the transfer of land, but rather to provide additional evidence which is at once more permanent and reliable.
The fact that customary law required no writing for the sale of land in the past is perhaps its greatest shortcoming. In other words, there is no law that says a transaction conducted under native law and custom (customary law) that is reduced into writing is invalid. It is only that writing was unknown in the custom but with modernisation, such act is no more strange.
Certainly, documentary evidence is not a requirement of native law and custom or customary law transaction for the validity of such transaction. In essence, where there is an agreement for sale of land under customary law, it does not require that it be in writing for it to be a valid sale.
In the instant case, by executing the Deed of Conveyance between him and the representatives of Owanta Uku Community, he has not taken the transaction between them out of the province of customary law.
[Gaji v. Paye (2003) 8 NWLR (Pt. 823) 583; Commissioner of Lands & Housing, Kwara State v. Atanda (2001) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1018) 360; Agboola v. U.B.A. Plc (2011) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1259) 375; Tatu v. Estate of Late Adamu (2015) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1476) 364 referred to.]
(Pp. 372–373, paras. B-A)
EGWU V. ANUMENE (2025) 12 NWLR (PT. 2000) 329
ON NEED FOR CLAIMANT TO PLEAD AND LEAD EVIDENCE ON ROOT OF HIS TITLE TO LAND AS SHOWN IN HIS INSTRUMENT OF TITLE
A claimant who produces what he claims to be an instrument of grant, is not automatically entitled to the declaration of title sought over the property which such instrument purports to grant, particularly when such grant is contested by the adverse party. To succeed therefore, the claimant has to plead and lead evidence on the root of his title giving rise to that instrument.
In the instant case, the respondent tendered exhibit “L” which is a registered Deed of Conveyance to support his claim and also pleaded that the land was granted to him according to Owanta Native Law and Custom.
[Nruama v. Ebuzoeme (2006) 9 NWLR (Pt. 985) 217; Ibenye v. Agwu (1998) 11 NWLR (Pt. 574) 372 referred to.]
(Pp. 381-382, paras. H-B)
EGWU V. ANUMENE (2025) 12 NWLR (PT. 2000) 329
ON DUTY ON CLAIMANT CLAIMING TITLE TO LAND UNDER NATIVE LAW AND CUSTOM
In order to establish a grant or transfer, the claimant must plead and adduced evidence that the land was transferred or granted in the presence of witnesses and the claimant put into possession. To prove that, the claimant must plead the names of those witnesses who should be called to testify. In essence, it is not sufficient for a party or claimant seeking to establish title to land under native law and custom to present a Deed of Conveyance or purchase receipt alone.
He must lead evidence to establish the fact of the grant and the actual handing over of possession in the presence of witnesses who should also testify to that effect. In the instant case, the appellants pleaded the root of the title of the 1st appellant to the land in dispute through traditional history. They equally testified and called two witnesses who corroborated their testimony on that root of title. This was not contradicted by the respondent.[Okonkwo v. Okolo (1988) 2 NWLR (Pt. 79) 632; Adedeji v. Oloso (2007) 5 NWLR (Pt.1026) 133; Agboola v. U.B.A. Plc (2011) 11 NWLR (Pt.1258) 375; Kopek Construction Ltd. v. Ekisola (2010) 3 NWLR (Pt.1182) 618 referred to.]
(P. 382, paras. B-E)
EGWU V. ANUMENE (2025) 12 NWLR (PT. 2000) 329
ON WHETHER PRODUCTION OF INSTRUMENT OF GRANT AUTOMATICALLY ENTITLE A CLAIMANT TO DECLARATION OF TITLE
Where a plaintiff relies on title by virtue of a conveyance and fails to adduce evidence of the execution of such conveyance, he would be held to have failed to prove the due execution of the conveyance and accordingly failed to have discharged the onus to prove his title.
In other words, it does not mean that once a claimant produces what he claims to be an instrument of grant, he is automatically entitled to a declaration that the property which such instrument purports to grant is his own.
Rather, production and reliance upon such an instrument inevitably carries with it the need for the court to enquire 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 capacity and authority to make the grant,
(d) whether the grantor had in fact what he purported to grant and whether it had the effect claimed by the holders of the instrument.
In the instant case, the transaction leading to the said grant of the land in dispute was conducted under native law and custom. As at 1977 when the transaction was conducted, the land was held by the Owanta Community under native law and custom. It was beyond doubt that, by native law and custom, such things as Written Contracts or Deeds of conveyance were not necessary to affect a valid sale or grant.
What was required was the fact of the grant, evidence of the consideration for the grant and the grantee being put into possession.
Without evidence of such facts, the tendering of a Deed of Conveyance such as exh. “L” could not obviate the requirement of calling witness to establish the customary grant. The fact that exhibit “L” was registered did not help the case of the respondent. That was because the production of a Deed of Conveyance did not automatically prove title under native law and custom.
The respondent did not adduce evidence of the conditions precedent to be satisfied in a customary grant before the Deed of Conveyance was executed. The fact of registration of the Deed could not avail the respondent once the evidence on the validity of the Deed itself was not established.
The appellants on the other hand pleaded the root of the title of the 1st appellant to the land in dispute through traditional history. They equally testified and called two witnesses who corroborated their testimony on that root of title. The testimony was in no way contradicted nor controverted by the respondent who only pleaded a blanket denial of the appellants’ root of title.
The fact that the 1st appellant and his father had registered the parcel of land with the land committee did not derogate from their title to the land.
On the totality of the evidence adduced at the trial court, the appellants, established a better title to the land in dispute considering that proof in a civil case is on the balance of probabilities or preponderance of evidence.
The uncompleted structures on the land were erected by the 1st appellant but there was no visible evidence of any act done by the respondent on the land in dispute.
Even the farming tenant (DW1) was not put on the land in dispute but on another portion as shown on the dispute Plan.
[Cardoso v. Daniel (1986) 2 NWLR (Pt. 20) 1; Nwaokafor v. Udegbe (1963) 1 All NLR 104; Ejilemele v. Opara (2003) 9 NWLR (Pt.826) 536; Kyari v. Alkali (2001) 11 NWLR (Pt.724) 412; Romaine v. Romaine (1992) 4 NWLR (Pt.238) 650 referred to.]
(Pp. 382-383, paras. B-F)
EGWU V. ANUMENE (2025) 12 NWLR (PT. 2000) 329
ON WHETHER MERE REGISTRATION OF A DOCUMENT OF TITLE OR TRANSFER OR GRANT IS CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE OR PROVE OF SUCH GRANT OR TRANSFER
Mere registration of a document of title or transfer or grant, as in the instant case, is not conclusive evidence or prove of such grant or transfer particularly when the act of registration was done during the pendency of the proceeding or suit.
Where the conveyance is disputed, in addition to tendering the conveyance in evidence, the vendee is obliged to call those who conveyed the land to him to testify to that effect.
Some other person who witnessed the grant may suffice.
[City Property Dev. Ltd. v. A.-G., Lagos State (1976) NSCC 43 referred to.]
(P. 384, paras. E-H)
EGWU V. ANUMENE (2025) 12 NWLR (PT. 2000) 329
ON WHETHER WRITTEN DOCUMENT NECESSARY IN CUSTOMARY LAND TRANSACTIONS
Although under customary law, writing is unknown and therefore unnecessary, however, with advancement in literacy, written documents evidencing customary land transactions has become prevalent.
It is currently commonly employed in customary land transactions, but that does not mean that it should be used to supplant the requirements prescribed by customary law for the transfer of land, rather it should be employed to provide additional evidence that is in a more permanent form.
(Pp. 384-385, paras. H-A)
EGWU V. ANUMENE (2025) 12 NWLR (PT. 2000) 329
ON DUTY ON CLAIMANT FOR DECLARATION OF TITLE TO LAND TO ESTABLISH THE IDENTITY OF LAND IN DISPUTE
In every action for declaration of title to land, especially where there are two competing claims of title to the land in dispute, the issue of identity of the land becomes paramount.
Therefore, where the identity of the land is not ascertained, no declaration can be made as the court cannot make an order in vacuum. It is therefore the duty of the person who seeks the declaration to first prove the identity of the land with certainty and or exactitude.
The onus therefore lies on the party claiming title to satisfy the court that he is, on the evidence adduced by him, entitled to the declaration to the particular parcel or piece of land which he claims. In doing so, he must rely on the strength of his own case and not on the weakness of the defence.
[Owhonda v. Ekpechi (2003) 17 NWLR (Pt. 849) 326; Ofigo v. Ezeoke (2019) LPELR-46953; Gbadamosi v. Dairo (2007) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1021) 282; Ogedengbe v. Balogun (2007) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1039) 380; Kolo v. Lawan (2018) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1637) 495 referred to.]
(Pp. 360–361, paras. F-A)
NIGERIAN INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL RESEARCH .v. PRINCE OLUSUNMADE (2025) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1995) 183
ON WHETHER FEDERAL HIGH COURT HAS JURISDICTION OVER CLAIM FOR COMPENSATION FOR LAND
The Federal High Court cannot adjudicate over a claim for compensation for land. [Nkuma v. Odili (2006) 6 NWLR (Pt. 977) 587 referred to.] (Pp. 211-212, paras. H-A)
NIGERIAN INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL RESEARCH .v. PRINCE OLUSUNMADE (2025) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1995) 183
ON WHETHER FEDERAL HIGH COURT HAS JURISDICTION OVER MATTER DEALING WITH COLLECTION OF GROUND RENTS
The Federal High Court does not have jurisdiction to determine a matter dealing with collection of ground rents due on land. [Ikenne Local Government v. West African Portland Cement Co. (2011) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1261) 223 referred to.] (P. 212, para. A)
ACMEL (NIG.) LTD. V. F.B.N. PLC [2024] 3 NWLR (Pt. 1924) 1
ON NATURE OF INTEREST ACQUIRED BY PURCHASER OF LAND WHO MADE FULL OR PART PAYMENT OF PURCHASE PRICE AND WAS PUT IN POSSESSION
Where there is an agreement for the sale of land for which the purchaser has paid the purchase price in full or in part, and has taken either physical or constructive possession, the purchaser acquires a valid interest, which supersedes any subsequent transaction in respect thereof. [Ayinla v. Sijuola (1984) 1 SCNLR 410; Obijuru v. Ozims (1985) 2 NWLR (Pt.6) 167; Ohiaeri v. Yusuf (2009) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1137) 207 referred to.] (Pp. 33-34, paras. H-B).
DIBIA V. TUBONIMIA (2024) 11 NWLR (PT. 1950) 433
ON FIVE MODES OF PROVING OWNERSHIP OR TITLE TO A PIECE OF LAND
There are five individual ways or modes of proving ownership/title to a piece of land as follows:
- by documents of title; or
- by evidence of traditional history; or
- by various acts of ownership, numerous and positive and extending over a length of time as to warrant reasonable inference of ownership; or
- by acts of long enjoyment and possession of the land under section 143 of the Evidence Act 2011; or
- by proof of ownership of adjacent piece of land in circumstances which render it probable that the owner of such adjacent land, would, in addition, be the owner of the land in dispute under section 35 of the Evidence Act 2011.
[Idundun v. Okumagba (1976) 10 SC 227; Piaro v. Tenalo (1976) 12 SC 31; Okafor v. Idigo (1984) 1SCLNR 481; Mogaji v. Cadbury (1985) 2 NWLR (Pt. 7) 393; Ogundipe v. Awe (1988) (1988) 1 SCNJ84; Atanda v. Ajani (1989) 3 NWLR (Pt. 111) 511; Adeniran v. Alao (1992) 2 NWLR (Pt. 223) 350; Agbara v. Amara (1995) 7 NWLR (Pt. 410) 712; Aguv. Nnadi (1999) 2 NWLR (Pt. 589) 131; Onwugbuforv. Okoye (1996) 1 NWLR (Pt. 424) 252; Ezeakabekwev. Emenike (1998) 11 NWLR (Pt. 575) 529; Ebevuchev. Ukpakara (1996) 7 NWLR (Pt.460) 254 referred to.] (Pp. 467-468, paras. F-E).
DIBIA V. TUBONIMIA (2024) 11 NWLR (PT. 1950) 433
ON ONUS ON PLAINTIFF SEEKING DECLARATION OF TITLE TO LAND BY ANY OF THE ESTABLISHED FIVE WAYS OR MODES
In a suit or claim for declaration of title to land by any of the established five ways or modes, the claimant or plaintiff is to succeed only on the strength of the case presented by him through pleadings and evidence adduced, and not on the weakness of the defence or even absence of such defence. He must establish entitlement to the relief of the declaration to the title/ownership sought by way of admissible, credible, and sufficient evidence on the balance of probabilities to the satisfaction of the court. [Awote v. Owodunmi (1987) 2 NWLR (Pt.57) 366; Efetiroroje v. Okpalefe II (1991) 5 NWLR(Pt. 193) 517; Bankole v. Pelu (1991) 8 NWLR (Pt.211) 523; Oyetola v. Adeleke (2024) 5 NWLR (Pt.1930) 113; Odi v. Iyala (2004) 8 NWLR (Pt. 875)283; Ogun v. Akinyelu (2004) 18 NWLR (Pt. 905)362; Otanma v. Youdubagba (2006) 2 NWLR (Pt.964) 337; Adu v. Gbadamosi (2009) 6 NWLR (Pt.1136) 110; Oyeneyin v. Akinkugbe (2010) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1184) 265 referred to.] (Pp. 468-469, paras. E-A.
DIBIA V. TUBONIMIA (2024) 11 NWLR (PT. 1950) 433
ON ONUS ON CLAIMANT/PLAINTIFF WHERE HE RELIES ON TRADITIONAL HISTORY IN PROOF OF HIS CLAIM FOR DECLARATION OF OWNERSHIP/TITLE TO LAND
Where a claimant relies on and bases his claim for declaration of ownership/title to land on traditional history, he must plead and prove by credible evidence on the following:
- Who founded the land;
- How the land was founded by the named founder, e.g. by deforestation, conquest, first settlement, gift, inheritance or purchase;
- Names and particulars of the intervening owners to whom the land had passed or devolved from the founder and their relationships to him down to the claimant/plaintiff, in an unbroken genealogical chain in which there exists no unexplained gabs that would puncture the credibility of the claim.
[Odi v. Iyalla (2004) 8 NWLR (Pt. 875) 283;Achiakpa v. Nduka (2009) 14 NWLR (Pt. 734) 623;Ukaegbu v. Nwololo (2009) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1127) 194;Nwokorobia v. Nwogu (2009) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1150)553; Nwokidu v. Okanu (2010) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1181)362; Alli v. Alesinloye (2000) 6 NWLR (Pt. 660) 177;Adejumo v. Ayantagbe (1989) 3 NWLR (Pt. 110) 417;Odunukwe v. Ofamata (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1225)404; Ewo v. Ani (2004) 3 NWLR (Pt.861) 610
TSY LTD. V. NWACHUKWU (2024) 13 NWLR (PT. 1954) 147
ON WHETHER CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY CONCLUSIVE PROOF OF TITLE TO LAND
A certificate of occupancy issued under the Land Use Act 1978 is merely prima facie evidence of the right, interest or title to which it relates without more. It is not conclusive proof of such title and may be effectively challenged by a person with a better title. [Adole v. Gwar (2018) 11 NWLR (Pt.1099) 562; Labadedi v. Lagos Metal Ind. (Nig.) Ltd. (1973) NSCC1; Reg. Trustees, A.C.C. v. Reg. Trustees, G.C.C. (2021)16 NWLR (Pt. 1801) 105 referred to.] (Pp. 180-181, paras. H-B).
OLATEJU V. COMM., L.&H., KWARA STATE (2024) 17 NWLR (PT. 1968) 473
ON CONDITION PRECEDENT TO COMPULSORY ACQUISITION OF LAND
By virtue of sections 28(1), (2)(b) and 29 of the Land Use Act and section 44 of the 1999 Constitution (as altered), evidence of prompt payment of compensation to the owner of a land acquired by the acquiring authority is a sine qua non for a valid compulsory acquisition of the land. Therefore, a Governor cannot validly exercise his power of revocation of land from the holder of the right of occupancy without payment of compensation. Government cannot acquire land from an individual or community without the payment of adequate compensation.
OLATEJU V. COMM., L.&H., KWARA STATE (2024) 17 NWLR (PT. 1968) 473
ON WHETHER PARTY WHO ACCEPTED COMPENSATION UPON COMPULSORY ACQUISITION OF HIS LAND CAN SUBSEQUENTLY CHALLENGE ACQUISITION
A party cannot, after receiving compensation for the compulsory acquisition of his land by the Government, later sue to challenge the validity of the acquisition and resile from the previous agreement made for the compensation.
ADENIRAN V. ADIO (2024) 16 NWLR (PT. 1964) 351
ON WHO SHOULD BE DECLARED OWNER WHERE PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANT BOTH CLAIM OWNERSHIP OF THE SAME LAND
Where there are adverse claims to ownership of land, the person with a better title is declared the owner. (P. 375, para. B).
OLATEJU V. COMM., L.&H., KWARA STATE (2024) 17 NWLR (PT. 1968) 473
OF CLAIMANT A CONDITION PRECEDENT TO OPERATION OF LIMITATION LAW
While knowledge of the true owner of land of the adverse possession of another is essential to the success of the equitable defences of laches and acquiescence, it is not material under limitation law. Even if a plaintiff has no knowledge of the acquisition because he is not within the place where the trespass or acquisition occurred, that cannot be a valid defence to commencing the action outside the statutory period. In other words, a plaintiff who by reason of his absence from the place where the trespass occurred is unaware of the trespass cannot use such lack of knowledge as a defence to commence an action outside the limitation period. [Ajibona v. Kolawole (1996) 1 NWLR (Pt. 476) 22; Akibu v. Azeez (2003) 5 NWLR (Pt. 814) 643 applied.] (Pp. 510-511, paras. C-A).
OLATEJU V. COMM., L.&H., KWARA STATE (2024) 17 NWLR (PT. 1968) 473
ON CONDITION PRECEDENT TO COMPULSORY ACQUISITION OF LAND
By virtue of sections 28(1), (2)(b) and 29 of the Land Use Act and section 44 of the 1999 Constitution (as altered), evidence of prompt payment of compensation to the owner of a land acquired by the acquiring authority is a sine qua non for a valid compulsory acquisition of the land. Therefore, a Governor cannot validly exercise his power of revocation of land from the holder of the right of occupancy without payment of compensation. Government cannot acquire land from an individual or community without the payment of adequate compensation. In the instant case, there were sufficient facts before the trial court for it to consider and determine whether any compensation was paid to the original owners of the land in compliance with section 44(1) of the 1999 Constitution. Upon evaluation of the evidence before it, the trial court and the Court of Appeal rightly came to the conclusion that compensation was paid to the appellant’s family. [Messrs Singoz & Co. (Nig.) Ltd. v. U.M. Co. Ltd. (2022) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1862) 203; EIfPet. (Nig.) Ltd. v. Umah (2018) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1628)428 referred to.] (P. 519, paras. B-F).
NWANNE V. OKOLI (2025) 2 NWLR (PT. 1976) 339
ON WAYS OF PROVING TITLE TO LAND
There are five ways of proving title or ownership of land, viz:
(a)by traditional history evidence;
(b)by production of documents of title;
(c) by acts of person(s) claiming the land such as farming, selling, leasing, or renting out the land or part thereof extending over sufficient length of time numerous or positive enough to warrant the inference that the person(s) is/are true owner(s) of the land;
(d) by acts of long possession and enjoyment of the land which ought to be prima facie evidence of ownership of the particular piece of land in dispute;
(e) by proof of possession of connected or adjacent land in circumstances rendering it probable that the owner of such connected adjacent land could in addition, be the owner of land in dispute. Section 35 of the Evidence Act also refers.
In this case, the Court of Appeal rightly applied the principle to the case. [Idundun v. Okumagba (1976)9 – 10 S.C. 227; Piaro v. Tenalo (1976) 1 F.N.L.R 229.
NWANNE V. OKOLI (2025) 2 NWLR (PT. 1976) 339
ON BURDEN ON PARTY CLAIMING EXCLUSIVE OWNERSHIP OF PART OF COMMUNAL LAND
Where a plaintiff pleads and leads evidence that the land in dispute is communally owned, the onus shifts ab initio to the adverse party to prove the contrary, the rationale being that there is a presumption in favour of communal ownership of land under custom. Also, where parties rely on traditional evidence of inheritance from a common ancestor but the claimant by his subsequent pleadings asserts that the land is no longer communal, the same burden of proof cast on a party seeking for declaration of title as a claimant also lies on him to show that the land the subject matter of the dispute is exclusively his and he ought to rely on the strength of his own case and not on the weakness of the defendant even though as defendant he did not seek for a counter-claim.
MARANRO V. OYEGOKE (2025) 3 NWLR (PT. 1980) 447
ON WHETHER PARTY SEEKING DECLARATION OF TITLE TO LAND MUST PROVE MORE THAN ONE ROOT OF TITLE
A party seeking declaration of title is not bound to prove more than one root of title to succeed but he is entitled to rely on more than one root of title. However, where acts of ownership and long possession is predicated on traditional history as pleaded, he is not entitled to a declaration of title based on evidence of acts of ownership and long possession where evidence of traditional history is unavailing. [Ezuchukwu v. Ukachukwu (2004) 17NWLR (Pt. 902) 227 referred to.] (P. 472, paras. C-E.
MARANRO V. OYEGOKE (2025) 3 NWLR (PT. 1980) 447
ON WHETHER PROOF OF TITLE TO LAND BY TRADITIONAL EVIDENCE TAKES PRIORITY OVER OTHER WAYS OF PROVING TITLE
Proof of title to land by adducing traditional evidence takes priority over and above other ways of establishing title, as traditional evidence usually goes to the root as to how a claimant and his predecessor-in-title came upon the land. [Sanusiv. Amoyegun (1992) 4 NWLR (Pt. 237) 527 referred to.] (P. 477, D-E).
MARANRO V. OYEGOKE (2025) 3 NWLR (PT. 1980) 447
ON ONUS ON PLAINTIFF SEEKING DECLARATION OF TITLE TO LAND WHERE RELIES ON TRADITIONAL HISTORY
A claimant fails or succeeds on his traditional history. If the history succeeds, having been accepted by the court on its merits either as standing alone without any competing story or where any other story is seen to be unreliable or completely rejected, there is no need to show recent acts of ownership. The traditional history is accepted on its strength and cogency. Where evidence of traditional history is not contradicted or is not in conflict with another and is found by the court to be cogent, it can support a claim for declaration of title without further requirements Conversely, if the history fails, the plaintiff cannot abandon his pleadings and rely on acts of ownership over a long period of time, numerous and positive, which is only available to support title based on immemoriality, that is, time beyond human memory, which is one of the ways of proving title but is separately and distinctly alleged, nor can he be permitted to rely on any recent acts of possession and ownership to back his claim for title. [Eze v. Atasie (2000) 10 NWLR (Pt. 676) 470referred to.] (Pp. 473-474, paras. A-D).
MARANRO V. OYEGOKE (2025) 3 NWLR (PT. 1980) 447
ON WHAT PLAINTIFF RELYING ON TRADITIONAL HISTORY IN PROOF OF TITLE TO LAND MUST PLEAD AND PROVE
To establish 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. In other words, the pleading of the devolution and evidence in support must be reliable, credible or plausible, otherwise the claim for title will fail. He must show who his ancestors were and how they came to own and possess the land and eventually passed it to him. Traditional evidence must be cogent and 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. In the instant case, the appellant failed in this regard in his quest to claim ownership of the land in dispute. [Eze v. Atasie (2000) 10 NWLR (Pt. 676)470; Ojoh v. Kamalu (2005) 18 NWLR (Pt. 958) 523; Sogunro v. Yeku (2017) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1570) 290; Padav. Galadima (2018) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1607) 436 referred to.] (P. 472, paras. E-G).
MARANRO V. OYEGOKE (2025) 3 NWLR (PT. 1980) 447
ON MEANING OF “TIME IMMEMORIAL”
“Time immemorial” means a time in the past that was so long ago that people have no knowledge or memory of it. (P. 473, paras. C).
NIGER DELTA P.H. CO. LTD. V. MICHAEL (2025) 4 NWLR (PT. 1983) 489
ON MEANING AND PURPORT OF ‘COMPULSORY ACQUISITION’ AND RIGHT OF ACTION OF AGGRIEVED PARTY
‘Compulsory acquisition’ means that once a parcel of land in exclusive possession of a person is forcefully taken over by another person without following due process and/or payment of compensation. It amounts to compulsory acquisition of land within the meaning of Section 44 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) and it vests the aggrieved person with a right of action. The weakness or the strength of the case of a person on the merits and/or whether or not the case of the person would succeed on the merits are irrelevant considerations at this stage. It is also irrelevant that the facts relied upon could very well support another cause of action in tort or otherwise. In this case, the complaints of the respondent came clearly within the provisions of section 44 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. The complaints were about a breach of the respondent’s right to own property and they were thus properly brought under the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules 2009. The finding of the Court of Appeal, that the case of the respondent as commenced in the trial court was proper, was correct. [Jaiyesimi v. Darlington (2022) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1835) 335 referred to.] (Pp. 540-541, paras. G-H).
TAAN V. SCOA (NIG.) PLC (2025) 6 NWLR (PT. 1985) 1
ON EFFECT WHERE REGISTRABLE LAND INSTRUMENT NOT REGISTERED
By virtue of sections 2 and 15 of the Land Instruments Registration Law, Cap. L58, Laws of Lagos State,2003, instrument means a document affecting land in the State whereby one party, confers, transfers, limits, charges or extinguishes in favour of another party any right or title to or interest in land in the State and includes a Certificate of purchase and a Power of Attorney under which any instrument may be executed but does not include a Will. No instrument shall be pleaded or given in evidence in any court as affecting any land unless the same shall have been registered. The provisions of sections 2 and 15 of the Land Instruments Registration Law of Lagos State are ipsissima verba with similar provisions in the Land Instrument Laws of other States of Nigeria. By the provisions, any instrument which purports to transfer or extinguish any right, title or interest in land will not be pleaded or admissible in evidence except it is duly registered in due obedience to the sacrosanct prescription of section 15 of the Law. By the definition, a document required by law to be registered is one by which a person called the “grantor” confers, transfers, limits, charges or extinguishes in favour of another person called the “grantee” any right or title to or interest in land.
TAAN V. SCOA (NIG.) PLC (2025) 6 NWLR (PT. 1985) 1
ON EFFECT WHERE REGISTRABLE LAND INSTRUMENT NOT REGISTERED
Where a document qualifies as an instrument under the provisions of the Land Instruments Registration Law and it is not registered, it is not admissible to prove ownership of land. Where it is not so registered, it cannot be pleaded to ground title and if it is so pleaded to establish title, such a pleading should be struck out. An instrument affecting land which is registrable but has not been registered cannot be pleaded or tendered or produced in evidence and if it is pleaded and inadvertently received in evidence, it should be ignored and expunged. The fact that no objection was taken as to its admissibility does not save it since its exclusion is enjoined by law. [Amakra v. Zankley (1963) 2 SCNLR 223; Ole v. Ekede (1991)4 NWLR (Pt. 187) 569; Oredola Okeya Trading Co.v. A.-G., Kwara State (1992) 7 NWLR (Pt. 254) 412;Tewogbade v. Obadina (1994) 4 NWLR (Pt. 338)326; Alimi v. Obawole (1998) 6 NWLR (Pt. 555)591; Okafor v. Soyemi (2001) 2 NWLR (Pt. 698) 465;Igbum v. Nyarinya (2001) 5 NWLR (Pt. 707) 554; Bamgbegbin v. Oriare (2001) 5 NWLR (Pt. 707) 628;Agbodike v. Onyekaba (2001) 10 NWLR (Pt. 722)576; Uzoegwu v. Ifekandu (2001) 17 NWLR (Pt. 741)49; Dantata v. Dantata (2002) 4 NWLR (Pt. 756)144; Ogbimi v. Niger Const. Ltd. (2006) 9 NWLR (Pt. 986) 474; Obienu v. Okeke (2006) 16 NWLR (Pt.1005) 225; Comm., Lands & Housing Kwara State v.Atanda (2007) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1018) 360; Akinduro v. Alaya (2007) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1057) 312; West African Cotton Ltd. v. Yankara (2008) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1077)323; Monkom v. Odili (2010) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1179)419; Bob-Manuel v. Woji (2010) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1196)260; Gbadamosi v. Okege (2011) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1233)175; Gbinijie v. Odji (2011) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1236) 103;Agboola v. U.B.A. Plc (2011) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1258)375; Ossai v. Nwajide (1975) 4 SC 207; Ojugbele v.Olasoji (1982) 4 SC 31; Nasir v. Abubakar (1997) 4NWLR (Pt. 497) 32; Agbodike v. Onyekaba (2001)10 NWLR (Pt. 722) 576; Akintola v. Solano (1986) 2NWLR (Pt. 24) 598; Reg. Trustees, Muslim Mission Hospital Committee v. Adeagbo (1992) 2 NWLR (Pt.226) 6 90; Oredola Okeya Trading Co v. A.-G., Kwara State (1992) 7 NWLR (Pt. 254) 412; Eso v. Adeyemi (1994) 4 NWLR (Pt. 340) 558; Savannah Bank Plc v. Ibrahim (2000) 6 NWLR (Pt. 662) 585, Niger Const. Ltd v. Ogbimi (2001) 18 NWLR (Pt. 744) 83; Ojonye v. Ibrahim (2002) 1 NWLR (Pt. 747) 166; Co-op. Bank Ltd v. Lawal (2007) 1 NWLR (Pt. 1015) 287; Etajata v. Ologbo (2007) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1061) 554referred to.] (Pp. 61-62, paras. B-B).
TAAN V. SCOA (NIG.) PLC (2025) 6 NWLR (PT. 1985) 1
ON WHEN UNREGISTERED REGISTRABLE INSTRUMENT CAN BE PLEADED AND ADMISSIBLE
A purchaser of land or a lessee in possession of the land by virtue of a registrable instrument which has not been registered and has paid the purchase money or the rent to the vendor or lessor in either case has acquired an equitable interest in the land which is as good as a legal estate. The equitable interest can only be defeated by a purchaser of the land for value without notice of the prior equity. A registrable instrument which has not been registered is admissible to prove such equitable interest and prove payment of purchase of money or rent. [Okoye v. Dumez (Nig.) Ltd. (1985) 1 NWLR (Pt. 4) 783; Oni v. Arimoro (1973) 1 All NLR (Pt.1) 189; Adesanya v. Aderonmu (2000) 9 NWLR (Pt.672) 370; Agwunedu v. Onwumere (1994) 1 NWLR(Pt. 321) 375; Edokpolo & Co. Ltd. v. Ohenhen (1994)7 NWLR (Pt. 358) 511; Anyabunsi v. Ugwunze (1995)6 NWLR (Pt. 401) 255; Etajata v. Ologbo (2007) 16NWLR (Pt. 1061) 554; Zacala v. Edosa (2018) 6NWLR (Pt. 1616) 528; Agboola v. UBA (2011) 11.
TAAN V. SCOA (NIG.) PLC (2025) 6 NWLR (PT. 1985) 1
ON WHEN UNREGISTERED REGISTRABLE INSTRUMENT CAN BE PLEADED AND ADMISSIBLE
An unregistered registrable instrument is not unpleadable and inadmissible for all purposes. Where it reflects the payment of money by the grantee or purchaser and the receipt of the payment by the grantor or vendor, it can be pleaded and is admissible as a purchase receipt. Where the payment of the purchased price is coupled with a continuous possession of the land by the purchaser, an unregistered registrable instrument is admissible to prove equitable interest in land. [Ole v. Ekede (1991) 4 NWLR (Pt. 187) 569; Tewogbade v. Obadina (1994) 4 NWLR (Pt. 338) 326; Awaogbo v. Eze (1995)1 NWLR (Pt. 372) 393; Ogunjumo v. Ademolu (1995)4 NWLR (Pt. 389) 254; Ezeogu v. Onwuchekwa (1997)4 NWLR (Pt. 502) 689; Mojekwu v. Mojekwu (1997)7 NWLR (Pt. 512) 283; Okafor v. Soyemi (2001) 2NWLR (Pt. 698) 465; Igbum v. Nyarinya (2001) 5NWLR (Pt. 707) 554.
TAAN V. SCOA (NIG.) PLC (2025) 6 NWLR (PT. 1985) 1
ON WHAT COURT CONSIDERS IN DETERMINATION OF WHETHER UNREGISTERED REGISTRABLE INSTRUMENT SHOULD BE ADMITTED OR REJECTED
In determining whether or not to admit or reject an unregistered registrable instrument, the court has to consider the purpose and the use to which it is being put. The pleadings must show that the document was pleaded as an acknowledgement of payment and not as an instrument of title. This is because the filing of pleadings is primarily to settle issues and if a document is pleaded, it must before a particular purpose and a document pleaded as transferring interest in land to a party cannot be considered for other purposes not pleaded. In the instant case, the appellant pleaded the deed of agreement, exhibit “C”, as a document to prove his joint ownership of the property in dispute. The appellant pleaded it as the document by which the 2nd respondent as grantor conveyed the reversionary interest to him as beneficiary and herself jointly.
TAAN V. SCOA (NIG.) PLC (2025) 6 NWLR (PT. 1985) 1
ON WHO IS BENEFICIAL OWNER OF PROPERTY
A beneficial owner is an owner who enjoys completely or all the rights and privileges legally possible for an owner to have or possess in respect of a leased property. [Alli v. Ikusebiala (1985) 1NWLR (Pt. 4) 630 referred to.] (P. 52, paras. E-F).
TAAN V. SCOA (NIG.) PLC (2025) 6 NWLR (PT. 1985) 1
ON WHAT IS HABENDUM CLAUSE
A habendum clause signifies the part of an instrument, such as a deed or will, which defines the extent and scope of the interest being granted and the conditions affecting the grant or disposition. [Anyaegbunam v. Osaka (2000) 5 NWLR (Pt. 657)386 referred to.] (Pp. 42-43, paras. H-A).