Proof of Claim to Land Title

In the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Held in Abuja

On Friday, 4 July 2025

Before Their Lordships

Mohammed Lawal Garba

Moore Abraham Aseimo Adumein

Stephen Jonah Adah

Jamilu Yammama Tukur

Mohammed Baba Idris

Justices, Supreme Court

SC/65/2018

Between

Mr Sunday Olusi Appellant

Mr Julius Olaitan Obaniyi Respondent (for himself and on behalf of other members of the Aparisu Family of Ikakumo Akolo)

(Lead Judgement delivered by Honourable Stephen Jonah Adah, JSC)

Facts

The Respondent brought an action against the Appellant in the High Court of Ondo State, seeking, among other things, a declaration that the Respondent’s family is the rightful owner of a parcel of land known as Akanyin Land, Ikakumo‑Akoko, and that he is therefore entitled to the customary right of occupancy. The Respondent also sought, in the alternative, a declaration that, based on the judgments in Suit No. IK/56/73 – Chief Daniel Olusi v Adamu Olojo & Ors decided at the Owo/Ikare Grade ‘A’ Customary Court and Suit No. HAD/19/74 – Chief Daniel Olusi v Adamu Olojo & Ors decided at the High Court of Justice, Ado‑Ekiti on 27 January 1978, he is entitled to the customary right of occupancy of the said land. An injunction restraining the Appellant from further acts of trespass and damages were also sought. The Appellant filed a defense and counter‑claimed for a declaration of title to the land.

After trial and final written addresses, the trial court granted all reliefs sought by the Respondent and dismissed the Appellant’s counter‑claim. The Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal, which dismissed the appeal and affirmed the trial court’s judgment. The Appellant then lodged a further appeal before the Supreme Court. Counsel for each side filed and exchanged briefs. The Respondent’s brief included a Preliminary Objection challenging the competence of the appeal.

Arguments on Preliminary Objection

The Respondent argued that the Appellant’s appeal was incompetent because the Appellant formulated the issues for determination based on the trial court’s judgment rather than the Court of Appeal’s decision. The Appellant’s counsel countered that the objection had no nexus to the grounds of appeal and should be dismissed.

Court’s Ruling on the Preliminary Objection

The Supreme Court held that a preliminary objection may only be used to challenge an appeal that is fundamentally incompetent and prevents the court from hearing it. It is not a venue for disputing how the appellant has couched the issues. The Court found that the appeal was against the Court of Appeal’s decision, not the High Court, and therefore dismissed the objection.

After dismissing the objection, the Court proceeded to the main issues.

Issues for Determination

1. Whether the Respondent proved his case and the counter‑claim was not proved, based on pleadings and evidence.

2. Whether the land claimed by the Respondent was ascertainable in extent and boundaries, and whether the Appellant failed to ascertain the land he claimed.

3. Whether an action in trespass can lie, based on pleadings and evidence.

Arguments

On issue one, the Appellant’s counsel reiterated the five ways of proving title to land and argued that the Respondent failed to show how the descendants of Akanyin, whom the Respondent claimed to belong to, acquired the land. He contended that a party relying on traditional history must prove it; otherwise, possession alone does not confer title. He maintained that the Respondent failed to establish ownership while the Appellant did.

On issue two, the Appellant’s counsel argued that the Respondent did not adequately ascertain the exact extent of the land, so the claim should have been dismissed.

On issue three, the Appellant’s counsel argued that a customary tenant cannot be a trespasser on land granted to him by his landlord, and that a customary tenant may only sue for forfeiture, not trespass. He claimed the reliefs granted to the Respondent were irregular, inappropriate, and invalid.

Respondent’s counsel rebutted on issues one and two, stating that witness PW1 identified the land in dispute, describing its boundaries and surrounding properties. PW1’s testimony was not discredited and was supported by PW2, PW3, PW4 and documentary evidence in Exhibits P1, P2 and P3. Respondent’s counsel argued that these witnesses and documents overwhelmingly established the Respondent’s title, which the lower courts found on the balance of probabilities.

On issue three, Respondent’s counsel argued that the Appellant’s entry onto the land and felling of trees constituted trespass, and that the trial court’s judgment and the Court of Appeal’s affirmation were unassailable.

Court’s Judgment and Rationale

Deciding issues one and two together, the Supreme Court held that in a claim for declaration of title to land, the claimant must present evidence and prove the case on the balance of probabilities or preponderance of evidence, as required by Sections 131 and 132 of the Evidence Act, 2011. The Court reiterated the five ways of proving title: (a) traditional evidence; (b) production of title documents; (c) acts of ownership over a sufficient period; (d) long possession and enjoyment; and (e) proof of adjacent land that makes ownership probable. A claimant may rely on one or more of these ways; one credible method suffices. The Court cited Idundun v Okumagba (1976) and Olukoya v Ashiru (2006).

The Court found that the Respondent mainly relied on traditional evidence, presenting four witnesses and five documentary exhibits. The witnesses recounted how Akanyi, the forefather of the Respondent’s Aparisu Family, first settled on the land, how ownership passed through succession to the Respondent’s grandfather, then to his father, and is now held by family head Simeon Obaniyi. The Court also noted that the trial court and Court of Appeal had concurrently found the land’s identity well known and established by the survey (Exhibit P3) and testimony of PW1. Exhibits P1 and P4, judgments of court, gave overwhelming weight to the Respondent’s case. The Supreme Court found no error in the lower courts’ findings that the Respondent established his claim and the land’s identity.

On issue three, the Court held that possession entitles a party to sue for trespass, but where both parties claim possession, trespass will be awarded to the party who can show title. The Court cited Motunwase v Sorungbe & Anor (1988). The Court concluded that the Respondent proved a better title, so the Court of Appeal was not faulted for affirming the trespass claim against the Appellant.

Appeal dismissed.

Representation

T. M. Ogunmoroti with Ayetunde Adeleke for the Appellant.

Victor U. Udeh with Ekere E. Bassey for the Respondent.

Reported by Optimum Publishers Limited, Publishers of the Nigerian Monthly Law Reports (NMLR) (An affiliate of Babalakin & Co.)