Background
This suit, filed as HCU/64/2010 before Hon. Justice P. A. Akhihiero on 2024-09-27 at the High Court of Justice, Edo State (Uromi Division), stems from a dispute over a 100ft by 100ft parcel of land at Uzegua Quarters, Efandion-Uromi. The Claimant, Barrister Andrew I. Ebom, purchased the land on 10 July 2009 from Mr. Oko-Uromi Omoazonmen by Deed of Transfer (Exhibit B) and applied for statutory rights of occupancy. He alleged that the 1st Defendant, Mr. Vincent Anenih, and the 2nd Defendant, Mr. Emmanuel Inetianbor, encroached on the land, leading him to seek:
- A declaration that he is entitled to statutory rights of occupancy;
- A declaration nullifying the purported transfer to the 2nd Defendant;
- A perpetual injunction against further interference.
Meanwhile, the 1st Defendant counter-claimed a declaration of title and deposited a Deed of Transfer to the 2nd Defendant (Exhibit A). The 2nd Defendant defaulted and was foreclosed from defending the suit. The Claimant and the 1st Defendant both led evidence of Esan native law and custom relating to burial rites and succession. Three witnesses testified for the Claimant, and one for the 1st Defendant.
Issues
The Court distilled two principal issues for determination:
- Whether the Claimant proved title to the land in dispute on the balance of probabilities;
- Whether the 1st Defendant/Counter-Claimant is entitled to the reliefs sought in his counter-claim.
Ratio Decidendi
The Court applied established principles on proof of title to land under Nigerian law, namely that title may be proved by:
- Traditional evidence (history of ownership under native law and custom);
- Production of documents of title;
- Acts of ownership;
- Possession of adjacent land;
- Long possession and enjoyment.
Further, the Court reaffirmed the maxim de minimis non curat lex in declining to entertain academic or moot issues devoid of practical utility.
Court Findings
On Issue 1: The Claimant failed to establish his root of title by traditional evidence. He relied on hearsay from non-family witnesses regarding performance of burial rites by his vendor’s ancestors. No direct evidence was produced from the vendor’s lineage to prove succession under Esan custom. The Claimant’s deed (Exhibit B) was inseparable from this defective traditional history. Having failed the primary mode of proof, his reliance on acts of ownership and eight months of caretaker possession could not salvage his title, since those acts depend on a valid root title. Consequently, he did not satisfy the balance of probabilities.
On Issue 2: The 1st Defendant admitted selling the land to the 2nd Defendant; therefore, any declaration of title or injunction against the Claimant would be academic. The counter-claim seeks reliefs in respect of property no longer owned by him. In line with the principle that courts do not decide moot questions, the counter-claim was dismissed.
Conclusion
Both the Claimant’s suit and the 1st Defendant’s counter-claim were dismissed for lack of merit. The Claimant did not prove title on the balance of probabilities, and the counter-claim was academic. No order as to costs.
Significance
This decision underscores the necessity of proving root of title by credible traditional evidence in land disputes under native law. It clarifies that subsequent documentation and acts of possession cannot cure defects in the foundational proof of title. The judgment also reinforces judicial restraint against entertaining academic or moot claims, preserving court resources for live controversies.