Background
On 2012-10-12, Mr. Akhere Okosun, Mr. Matthew Adaghe and Mr. Austine Eimunjeze (Claimants), suing on behalf of Egbele Community of Uromi, instituted Suit No. HCU/62/2012 at the Edo State High Court (Uromi Judicial Division) against Mr. Fidelis Okosun (Defendant). They sought:
- A declaration of entitlement to statutory rights of occupancy over approximately 1,000 acres at Odegbo Farm Bush, Egbele, Uromi;
- A perpetual injunction restraining the Defendant from further encroachment;
- Damages for trespass.
The Claimants relied on a traditional history dating to the 14th century, asserting communal ownership by ancestors who founded Afuda, Idumu-Enabor, Uwen-Udughele, Idumu-Imiomon, Idumu-Esele and Idumu-Ekhuere quarters. A litigation survey plan (Exhibit D) demarcated the land, bounded by the Unuwazi/Ujabhole Road, a moat and the Okoven shrine.
The Defendant denied communal title, claiming personal ownership through an unbroken chain: his great-grandfather Unegbato Ojezi, to his grandfather Ehianeta, to his father Okosun. He alleged a customary gift inter vivos of 300 native plots in the 1960s, adverse possession, compensation for sand excavation by John Africa Construction Company, and a Customary Court judgment (ECACCI/36/2000) upheld on appeal (CCA/33A/2004).
After trial testimony from four Claimant and five Defendant witnesses, and written addresses, Justice P.A. Akihihiero reserved judgment and delivered it on 2022-08-04.
Issues
- Whether the Claimants proved their proprietary interest in the disputed land on the balance of probabilities;
- Whether, having proved title, they were entitled to a perpetual injunction and damages for trespass.
Ratio Decidendi
The Court reaffirmed that title to land must be proven by one of five methods: traditional evidence, documentary title, acts of ownership, possession of connected land, or long possession. Communal land claims require identification of a communal founder and an unbroken chain of devolution. A gift inter vivos must be proved by actual handing over and acceptance before witnesses. The burden of proof rests on the Claimants throughout, and gaps in traditional history or unsupported assertions will defeat a declaration claim.
Court Findings
- Identity of Land: Not contested. The Claimants’ Exhibit D, admitted without counter-claim, defined the parcel bounded by a road, moat and shrine.
- Traditional Evidence: Claimants traced deforestation to 14th century ancestors but failed to identify specific founders or a continuous chain to present members, rendering communal title unproven.
- Gift Inter Vivos: Defendant’s claim of a 1960s gift of 300 native plots lacked evidence of formal handing-over or witness acceptance, failing this method of establishing title.
- Acts of Possession: Both parties described farming and receipt of compensation for sand excavation, but documentary support was weak and insufficient to supplant lack of root title.
- Burden of Proof: Claimants did not discharge the onus to prove title by any recognized method. Deficiencies in pleadings and evidence on communal ownership and devolution led to collapse of their case.
Conclusion
The Court held that the Claimants failed to establish title on the balance of probabilities. Accordingly, all reliefs—including declaration of entitlement, perpetual injunction and damages—were dismissed. The Claimants were ordered to pay the Defendant’s costs of ₦100,000.
Significance
This decision provides authoritative guidance on proving communal land title under Nigerian customary law, emphasizing strict compliance with traditional evidence requirements and unbroken lineage. It clarifies that acts of possession or unverified gifts cannot substitute for establishing an unbroken chain of ownership. The ruling also confirms that, in absence of a counter-claim, the claimant’s survey plan definitively identifies the land in dispute, guiding future land litigation practice.