Alhaji Jamiu Olokotintin Vs Saadu Sarumi (2002)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

L. KUTIGI, J.S.C.

In the High Court of Kwara State holden at Ilorin the plaintiff’s claims against the defendants read thus –“(a) A declaration that the plaintiff is the occupier/holder of the said piece of land lying and situate at Ile Olokotintin, Ilorin.(b) Perpetual injunction restraining the defendants, their servants and agents from any act of trespass on the said land, and(c) One thousand naira (N1,000.00) general damages for the said trespass.”Pleadings were ordered, filed and exchanged. Thereafter the case proceeded to trial. The plaintiff gave evidence and called two other witnesses to prove his claims. Only the first defendant testified for the defendants.The facts of the case are quite simple and straight forward. The plaintiff said the land in dispute measuring about 200 feet by 600 feet was the farmland of his grandfather one Abdullahi Olokotintin. That the land devolved on him through his line of ancestors namely Abdullahi Olokotintin and Iliyasu Olokotintin the plaintiff’s father. He said he has been farming on the disputed land.The defendants on the other hand said the land in dispute was given to their grandfather Ologbondoko by Abdul Salami a one time Emir of Ilorin as a reward of his gallantry and valour during the Ikoko war. That after the death of Ologbondoko, the land devolved on his children including Ahmadu, the first defendant’s father. Thereafter the land devolved on the first defendant herein who is the present head of the family. That his family have since been exercising acts of ownership on the land. The defendants also contended that the land in dispute was adjudged to belong to their family by the Ilorin High Court in suit no. KWS/8A/84 on 19th October, 1988 and that the plaintiff is estopped from relitigating the matter.At the close of the case for the parties the court in the presence of the respective parties visited the locus in quo. The parties thereafter submitted written addresses to the court. In a reserved judgment the learned trial Judge after a careful evaluation of the evidence led before him dismissed the plaintiff’s claims in their entirety.The record clearly shows that the plaintiff’s claims were dismissed on two main grounds as follows –(1) Want of sufficient and credible evidence.The learned trial Judge in his judgment on page 116 of the record said-In this case I find as a fact when weighing evidence of the plaintiff with that of defence I find the evidence of the plaintiff is so scanty and very unconvincing as to prove ownership of the land in dispute as to establish the case of trespass ………”(2) Res JudicataOn page 119 of the record the learned trial Judge held thus-“I have carefully perused the descriptions of the disputed land given by both parties and have been to the locus in quo and found that the land in dispute is the same with the one as determined in exhibit D1. The description of PW. 3 and that of defendant are almost the same and I have no doubt it is the same land as rightly contended by defence counsel ….. Having so hold as above, I am of the strong view that according to the evidence before me I hold that the land in dispute between the parties herein has been adjudged upon by the High Court Ilorin, in its appellate jurisdiction in its judgment delivered on 19/10/88 and that the doctrine of res judicata applies in this case.”Dissatisfied with the judgment of the trial High Court, the plaintiff appealed to the Court of Appeal, holden at Kaduna. In a reserved judgment the Court of Appeal unanimously dismissed the plaintiff’s appeal. This time however the appeal was dismissed only on one of the two grounds above. That is on the ground of lack of credible and sufficient evidence to prove the case as held by the trial court above. The Court of Appeal has this to say in its lead judgment-“If one takes a hard look at the evidence of the appellant (meaning plaintiff) and his witnesses, which I have done, it will be clear that he failed woefully to establish his case before the trial court … he also failed to establish with certainty the land he was claiming. He did not tender any survey plan of the disputed land. I have earlier in this judgment given his description of the land which is totally inadequate … I am therefore of the firm view that the trial Judge was right in holding that the appellant (meaning plaintiff) failed to prove his claim before him and he rightly dismissed it.”(Words in bracket are mine)The Court of Appeal however, resolved the issue of res judicata in favour of the plaintiff when it said:-“What is seriously disputed is that the disputed land is not the same. I have examined exhibit D1 very carefully and I observe that there is nothing in it to show the description of the land in dispute in that claim to enable the trial court to reach the conclusion that it was the same land being litigated before it. The trial court was therefore wrong to apply the doctrine of res judicata to the case. This issue is resolved in favour of the appellant (meaning plaintiff).”That was that.Still dissatisfied with the judgment of the Court of Appeal, the plaintiff has further appealed to this court. In accordance with rules of court, the patties filed and exchanged briefs of argument which were adopted at the oral hearing of the appeal.The plaintiff in his brief of argument has identified five issues as arising for determination in the appeal. Having carefully read the grounds of appeal and the issues raised in the brief as well as having read the judgments of both the trial High Court and that of the Court of Appeal referred to above, it seems to me quite clear that the single and most vital issue to decide in this appeal is –Whether or not the Court of Appeal was right in dismissing plaintiff’s claims on the ground that he failed for want of evidence to establish his case.Once this issue is resolved, all the other issues raised by the plaintiff will become irrelevant and unworthy of any consideration thereafter as will soon be seen.It is trite that a plaintiff seeking for a declaration of title to land must by cogent and credible evidence show that he is entitled to the land and not relying on the weakness of the defendant’s case (see for example Kodilinye v. Odu (1935) 2 WACA 336; Okafor v. Idigo (1984) 1 SCNLR 481, (1984) 6 SC. 1)Now what evidence did the plaintiff lead in this case On page 66 of the record, he testified (PW.1) amongst others as follows ” My grandfather Alhaji Abdullahi Asamu Olokotintin had the land. His son was called Iliyasu Olokotintin and he is my father where I inherited the land.”This was all the plaintiff had to say about how he came to own the land in dispute. And there is nothing useful in this direction in the testimonies of his other two witnesses, PW. 2 & PW. 3. The plaintiff never narrated how his grandfather came to own the land, and neither did he say how the land devolved upon him personally.It is evident that the plaintiff’s evidence and that of his witnesses is to say the least very weak and had completely failed to meet any of the five (5) ways for proving title to land as laid down in the case of Idundun v. Okumagba (1976) 9-10 SC. 227. The plaintiff had the burden of setting out clearly by who and how the land was founded and the names of persons who had exercised acts of ownership on the land before it devolved upon him (see for example Kalio v. Woluchem (1985) 1 NWLR (Pt. 4) 610; Alade v. Awo (1975) 4 SC 215). In the instant case, the plaintiff had failed to satisfy any of these requirements with fatal consequences. His claims ought to fail as they did (see Odofin v. Ayoola (1984) 11 SC 72). I must say that the record on page 77 shows that it was the 1st defendant who vividly described how he came to inherit the land in dispute. But since there was no counterclaim by the defendants they have no burden to discharge. I will therefore say no more on this point.The learned trial Judge was therefore perfectly right when he said in his judgment that-“The plaintiff’s evidence is so scanty and very unconvincing as to prove ownership of the land in dispute or as to establish the case of trespass and claim for damages.”The Court of Appeal was in my view, equally right when it upheld the finding of the trial court above.I will say nothing on the issue of res judicata because the defendants who raised it at the trial have not appealed against it. This appeal therefore fails. It is unmeritorious. It is accordingly dismiss with N10,000.00 costs in favour of the defendants.

SC.44/1998