declaration of title to land actions/suits

For a party to rely on acts of possession and ownership, as evidence in proof of his title to land, he must, to succeed, establish that such acts not only extend over a sufficient length of time but also that they are numerous and positive enough to warrant the inference of exclusive ownership of such land. Onwugbufor V. Okoye (1996) 1 NWLR (Pt. 4240 252; Idundun V. Okumagba (1976) 1 NMLR 200; Awodi & Anor. V. Ajagbe (2015) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1447) 578; Bit & anor v Kudu & 7ors (2021) HELAR ratio 6 and 7

Exclusive possession, when proved, is tantamount to title against the whole world, except one with better title. Iseogbekun V. Adelakun (2013) All FWLR (Pt. 664) 168 SC; Oduola V. Ibadan City Council (1978) 4 SC 59. Ownership will be ascribed or granted to a party who has proved possession for a long period by exercise of acts of possession. Ogbechie V. Onochie (1988) 1 NWLR (Pt. 70) 370; Nwosu V. Udeaja (1990) 1 NWLR (Pt. 125) 188; Bit & anor v Kudu & 7ors (2021) HELAR ratio 6 and 7

Acts of ownership can only be considered where root of title is pleaded and established by cogent and convincing evidence. Orlu V. Gogo-A-Bite (2010) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1196) 307, Fasoro V. Beyioku (1988) 2 NWLR Pt. 76 p.268, Ibenye V. Agwu (1988) 11 NWLR (Pt. 574) p.372; Giwa V Anzaku (2019) HELAR ratio 4

The act of letting/lesing out portions of the land to farmers or tenants is evidence of ownership and possession of the land, but that singular act cannot derogate from the title of one with a better title to the land. Tanko V. Echendu (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1224) 253.

Proof of ownership is prima facie proof of possession, the presumption being that the person having title to land in dispute is in possession, even if of the nature of constructive possession. Wahab Alamu Sapo & Anor. V. Alhaji Bintu Sunmonu (2010) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1205) 374, CAPATA V. Olanlokun & Anor (2013) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1383) 221; Ibude v Saidi & anor (2021)HELAR ratio 2

In a claim for declaration of title or right, the Plaintiff will not succeed if no evidence is led in support of his claim of title irrespective of any admission in the statement of defence. For a plaintiff who seeks declaration of right or title, a discretionary relief, to succeed, he has to open his case and present credible evidence first, notwithstanding any admission in the pleadings of the defendant. A.G Rivers State V. A.G AkwaIbom State &Anor. (2011) 3 SC. 1; Olokundade V. Samuel (2013) All FWLR (Pt. 669) 1150 CA; Giwa V Anzaku (2019) HELAR ratio 1; Regd. trustees A.C.C v Regd. trustess G.C.C (2021)HELAR 1; Bankole V. Denapo (2019) HELAR ratio 5; Magrima v Magrima & ors (2021) HELAR Ratio 6

The court will not make an order for declaration of title to land either on admission in pleadings or in default of defence without hearing appropriate evidence and being satisfied with such evidence. It is for that reason that the party laying claims must satisfy the court by evidence and not by an admission in the pleadings of the defendant supporting his entitlement to the declaration sought. The fact is not lost in mind that the court still has the discretion of granting or not granting the declaration, however the success of such a Claimant in action depends entirely on the strength of his own case and not on the chance thing of the weakness of the defence. Aiyeola V. Pedro (2014) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1424) 409; Okedare V. Adebara (1994) 6 NWLR (Pt. 349) 157; Bello V. Eweka (1981) 1 SC 101; Motunwase V. Sorungbe (1988) 4 NWLR (Pt. 92) 90; Giwa V Anzaku (2019) HELAR ratio 1; Regd. trustees A.C.C v Regd. trustess G.C.C (2021)HELAR 1; Bankole V. Denapo (2019) HELAR ratio 5; Magrima v Magrima & ors (2021) HELAR Ratio 6

Declaration of title to land is an equitable relief granted or denied subject to the discretion of the court. It is granted only in the circumstances in which the court is of the opinion that the party seeking it has, by the evidence he has successfully placed before the court, is entitled to an exercise of the court’s discretion in his favour. Tukuru & Ors. V. Sabi & Ors. (2013) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1363) 442.

The conditions that must be met are as follows: a) The land to which the declaration relates must be ascertained, that is, its identity, must be bown with certainty before the court would make a declaration. Wodi & Anor. V. Ajagbe (2015) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1447) 587 b) It is trite that a claim for declaration is a discretionary remedy, and so for a person to be entitled to same, he must by credible evidence establish the existence of a legal right or claim which the court is prepared to recognize and which if validly made the court is prepared to give legal recognition. Awodi & Anor. V. Ajagbe (2014) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1447) 578; Orlu V. Gogo-Abite (2010) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1196) 307; Giwa V Anzaku (2019) HELAR ratio 1 and 9;

For a Plaintiff to succeed in an action for declaration of title to land, the onus of proof lies on him to establish with certainty and precision the identity of the area of land to which he lays his claim. The Plaintiff is therefore saddled with the responsibility of proving by evidence and otherwise as well as describing with such degree of accuracy and aptitude that the identity of the area of land in respect of which he seeks its title is in fact, not in doubt. Atanda V. Iliasu (2013) All FWLR (Pt. 681) 1469 SC; Ajao V. Adigun (1993) 3 NWLR (Pt. 287) 389; Ojiakoko V. Wuru (1995) 12 SCNJ 79. pedro v. maukwe (2017) - 1 Giwa V Anzaku (2019) HELAR ratio 9 In a claim for declaration of title to land, the party who claims such remedy in court must prove his case with cogent, uncontradicted evidence that remains credible and reliable. Isegbekun V. Adelakun (2013) All FWLR (Pt. 664) P.168. Surakatu V. Adekunle (2019) HELAR ratio 8

Before a declaration of title to land is granted the land to which the claim relates must be identified with certainty. It is the duty of the Plaintiff to show the court clearly, the area of the land to which the claim relates. If it is not so ascertained the claim must fail, and it must be dismissed. The most common and easiest way of establishing the precise area of land in dispute is by the production of a survey plan of such land. Kano V. Maikaji (2013) All FWLR (Pt. 673) 1850; Nruama V. Ebuzoeme (2006) 9 NWLR (Pt. 985) 212; Gbadamosi V. Diaro (2007) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1021) P.282; Momoh & Ors. V. Umoru & Ors. (2011) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1270) 217. Suleman V. Ukana(2019 ) HELAR ratio 3 and 4

A Plaintiff seeking 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 title vested in him, including where necessary, the family that originally owns the land. Archibong V. Edak (2006) 7 NWLR, Pt. 980, Okoko V. Dakolo (2006) 14 NWLR Pt. 1000, P.401; EyoV. Onuoha & Anor. (2011) NWLR (Pt. 1257) 1. Ahmed v Salisu (2021) HELAR ratio 4

A Claimant who claims ownership of land through inheritance must plead and give evidence of the person or persons who had title or on whom title devolved in respect of the land through time before the defendant took control of the land. Anyafulu & Ors. V. Meka & Ors. (2014) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1406) 396. Ahmed v Salisu (2021) HELAR ratio 4

When a person pleads inheritance, as root of title, he simply says that the property was received from an ancestor under the laws of intestacy, bequest or device. And this he must properly plead and sufficient establish by credible evidence. See Balarabe V. Nadabo (2012) All FWLR (Pt. 646) 516 CA P.539, para H. Surakatu V. Adekunle (2019) HELAR ratio 8

The effect of a Claimant’s failure to prove ownership and exclusive possession of the land in dispute is that his claim must fail. Onovo & Ors. V. Mba & Ors. (2014) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1427) 391.Such failure of the Claimant does not mean that a Defendant who did not counter-claim title to the land gets awarded title to the land. Suleman V. Ukana (2019 ) HELAR ratio 5; Bit & anor v Kudu & 7ors (2021) HELAR ratio 6; Umoru V. Adama (2018) HELAR ratio 5; Ibude v Saidi & anor (2021) HELAR ratio 5

In a claim for declaration of title, where the defendant does not file a counter claim, the burden is heavier or the Claimant to prove his title to the land in dispute. The defendant certainly has no duty at all to prove his title to the land in dispute, and he will not be awarded any. Onovo & Ors. V. MBA & Ors. (2014) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1427) 391; Adekaibi V. Jangbon (2017) All FWLR (Pt. 383) 152 at 160; Surakatu V. Adekunle (2019) HELAR ratio 8; Umoru V. Adama (2018) HELAR ratio 5

It is a basic principle of law that where a claimant claims a declaration of title to land and fails to give the exact extent and identity of the land he is claiming his action will be liable to be dismissed. This is a condition precedent, a sine qua non to the success of the claim. The identity and location of land in dispute become issues in controversy only if raised in the pleadings of the parties. The Claimant has the onus of proving the location, extent and boundaries of the land where the Defendant does not by his defence pleadings admit or show that he is in agreement with whatever the Claimant has stated as the location and identity of the land in dispute. Lambu V. Isyakau (2012) All FWLR (Pt. 640) 1295; Momoh & Ors. V. Umoru & Ors. (2011) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1021)217; Gbadamosi v. Dairo (2007) 2 NWLR (Pt.1270) p.282 SC; Otanma V. Youdubagha (2006) 2 NWLR (Pt. 964) p.337. Giwa V Anzaku (2019) HELAR ratio 9;

Where evidence of tradition is relied on in proof of declaration of title to land, the burden is on the Plaintiff to plead and prove facts such as: a) Who founded the land. b) How did he found the land; and c) Particulars of the intervening owners through whom he claims. See Olokunlade V. Samuel (2013) All FWLR (Pt. 669) 1150; Onwugbufor V. Okoye (1996) 1 NWLR (Pt. 424) 252. Gbade V. Yisa (2017) HELA ratio 2 The point has repeatedly been made and it seems well settled that it is not sufficient for a party who relies on proof of original title to land on tradition to merely plead that he and his predecessors-in-title had owned and possessed the land in dispute from time immemorial without more. The question of original ownership of land from time immemorial is an issue of hard historical facts. Accordingly, materials and necessary facts to sustain such a claim must be clearly averred and proved. And they are not established by sweeping and vague assertions that the land is owned by the Plaintiff from time immemorial or from time beyond human memory without further details. Such sweeping assertions clearly leave the tradition evidence at large and in the air and can be fatal to a Plaintiff’s case if they are the only root of title he relies on. Alade V. Lawrence Awo (1975) 4 SC 215 at p. 229.

Where traditional evidence proffered by the parties are inconclusive, the court is enjoined to take into consideration facts in recent times given by the parties in order to determine which of the traditional evidence is more probable. To resort to this rule, the traditional evidence of parties must be capable of being believed but that since the two are competing, a court cannot prefer one to the other rather it is enjoined to look out for further facts in recent times to see which of the traditional history is more probable. Matanmi & Ors. Dada & Anor. (2013) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1353) 319; Nruamah V. Ebuzoeme (2013) All FWLR (Pt. 681) 1426 SC at P.1452 paras E – G. Umoru V. Adama (2018) HELAR ratio 2

The dismissal of a Plaintiff’s claim in an action for a declaration of title does not mean that the land belongs to the defendant, unless there is a finding on the evidence that the defendant had established his ownership of the land. Balarabe V. Nadabo (2012) All NWLR (Pt. 646) 516; Okafor V. Idigo (1984) 1 SCNLR 481; Udegbe V. Nwokafor (1963) 1 All NLR 417; Duede V. Tiboe (1961) 1 WLR 1040 Aro V. Fabolude (1983) 2 SC 75 pp. 544-545, paras G-A

Title to land or ownership of land may be proved in any one or more of the following ways: a) By traditional evidence b) By production of documents of title which are duly authenticated. c) By acts of selling, leasing, renting out all or part of the land or farming on it or on a portion of it. d) By acts of long possession and enjoyment of the land; and e) By proof of possession of connected or adjacent land in circumstances rendering it probable that the owner of such connected or adjacent land would in addition, be the owner of the land in dispute. The establishment of one of the five ways is sufficient proof of ownership. Elabanjo V. Ajigbotesho (2013) All FWLR (Pt. 701) 1594; Idundun V. Okumagba (1976) 9 – 10 SC 227; Adesanya V. Aderounmu (2000) FWLR (Pt. 15) 2492; Ewo V. Ani (2004) All FWLR (Pt. 200) 1484; Ndukuba V. Izundu (2006) All FWLR (Pt. 343) 1740, (2007) 1 NWLR (Pt. 1016) 432; Nruamah V. Ebuzoeme (2013) All FWLR (Pt. 681) 1426 SC; SulemanV. Ukana(2019 ) HELAR ratio 5; Ibude v Saidi & anor (2021)HELAR ratio 2

It is settled law that traditional evidence which is not contradictory or in conflict and which is found by the court to be cogent can support a claim for declaration of title. Eyo V. Onuoha & Anor (2011) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1257); Ewo V. Ani (2004) 5 NWLR (Pt. 861) p.610; Obiaso V. Okoye (1989) 5 NWLR (Pt. 119) p.80. Ibude v Saidi & anor (2021) HELAR ratio 2

A purchase receipt is evidence that there was an agreement for sale of land and that the consideration for sale was paid by the purchaser. A purchase of land can also be proved by a purchase receipt or any other fact which shows that such a transaction did take place. The payment of purchase price by a party automatically confers a right on the party which right is enforceable unless otherwise determined. Possession of a receipt by a party for payment for the sale of land and the possession of the land by the party raises equitable interest which may be converted into a legal estate by order of specific performance. This equitable interest can only be defeated by a purchaser of the land for value without notice of the prior equity. Moses v. Onu (2013) All FWLR (Pt. 674) 153; Yusuf v. Matthew (1999) 13 NWLR (Pt.633) 30; Adesanya v. Aderounmu (2000) FWLR (Pt.15) 2492; Elema v. Akezua (2000) FWLR (Pt.19) 534.

Long possession is more of a weapon of defence on equitable grounds to defeat claims for declaration of title and trespass than of offence to establish a claim for declaration of title and damages for trespass against the true owner. A claim for declaration of title is not founded on ownership by prescription under native law and custom. It is settled that where the Plaintiff claims for a declaration of title based on a grant under the native law and custom, unless the origin of title is validly established, the length of possession does not ripen or transform an invalid title of a trespasser into a valid ownership title. Mogaji & Ors. Cadbury (Nig) Ltd. (1985) 2 NWLR (Pt. 7) 395; Jegede & Ors. V. Gbajamo & Ors. (1974) 10 SC 183 at 187; Da Costa V. Ikomi (1968) 1 All NCR 394 at 398 at 399. Bankole V. Denapo (2019) HELA ratio 8