Kaburu Pada V. Woya Galadima & Anor (2017)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

AMIRU SANUSI, J.S.C.

This appeal is against the judgment of Court of Appeal, Abuja division of (the Lower Court) delivered on 17th day of January, 2006 which upturned the decision of High Court of Niger State (the trial Court) delivered on 29th March, 2004.

At the trial Court, the appellant as plaintiff, instituted an action claiming the underlisted reliefs against the defendant now respondent, namely:-

A. A declaration of right of occupancy to that piece and parcel of land being, lying and situate at Pyagun Village via She within the jurisdiction of the court more particularly described in paragraph 6 above.

B. An order of interim injunction restraining the defendant, his agents, privies and or servants from committing further trespass and or from dealing or interfering with the plaintiffs right in any manner that will prejudice and or adversely affect the plaintiffs claim of right of occupancy and possession of the aforesaid land.

C. The plaintiff claims substantial cost against the defendant.

FACTS OF THE CASE

The case pertains to a land dispute related to a parcel of land

1

situate at Pyagun village in Shiroro Local Government Area of Niger State. The plaintiff now appellant, claimed that he inherited the land in dispute from his father Pada Dami Dami who allegedly loaned same to the defendant, (respondent) many years ago. Upon the demise of appellant’s father about 7 to 10 years ago (i.e during the pendency of the suit before the trial High Court), the appellant tried to repossess the said land from the defendant/ respondent without success. Sequel to that, he commenced the suit to recover the land in dispute.

On the other hand, the defendant now respondent, also claimed to have inherited the said land from his father (Maimalo), whom he alleged had founded the said land many years ago. At the trial, the defendant/respondent adduced evidence to show that he had been in exclusive possession for so many years. He also adduced evidence of planting economic trees thereon. The appellant/plaintiff also called witnesses in proof of his title to the land in dispute. Suffice it to say however, that the defendant did not file any counter claim. At the end of the proceedings, the trial Court found in favour of the plaintiff/appellant. Aggrieved by the decision of the trial Court, the defendant (respondent) successfully appealed to

2

the Lower Court which upturned the decision of the trial Court and gave him possession of the land in dispute.

Piqued by the decision of the Lower Court, the appellant has now appealed to this Court, vide a notice and ground of appeal dated 20th day of March, 2006 containing five grounds of appeal.