Background
On 2023-06-27, the High Court of Justice, Edo State (Benin Judicial Division) delivered judgment in Suit No. B/326/2022 between Andrew Oboh (Claimant) and Christopher Prince Igbinosun & Edo State Geographical Information Service (Defendants). The Claimant filed a writ of summons on 2022-04-08 and an Amended Statement of Claim on 2022-08-11. His reliefs sought include a declaration of title, revocation of a Certificate of Occupancy wrongly granted, issuance of a fresh Certificate in his name, and perpetual injunction.
The Defendants did not file any defence: the 1st Defendant failed to appear or engage counsel; the 2nd Defendant appeared through counsel but did not file a defense, rendering the suit undefended. At trial, the Claimant testified and tendered six exhibits: Exhibit A (Approved Application for Allocation of Building Plot, 2011); Exhibit B (Deed of Transfer); Exhibit C (Survey Plan); Exhibit D (Community Resolution, 2021); Exhibit E (Letter of Objection); and Exhibit F (Letter of Protest). A hearing notice to the 1st Defendant was served but he defaulted. On closing, the 2nd Defendant’s counsel announced non-contest, and the matter proceeded on final addresses.
Issues
The sole issue framed for determination was:
- Whether the Claimant proved his case on a preponderance of evidence to justify the grant of the reliefs sought.
Ratio Decidendi
The Court applied established principles:
- Unchallenged Evidence: Evidence neither challenged by pleadings nor cross-examination is credible and should be accepted (Monkom v. Odili; Kopek Construction Ltd. v. Ekisola).
- Burden of Proof: A claimant seeking declaration of title must succeed on the strength of his evidence, not on the weakness of the defense (Ojo v. Azam).
- Proof of Title: Title may be proved by any one of five independent modes: traditional evidence; documents of title; acts of ownership; connected land possession; or long enjoyment (Idundun v. Okumagba).
- Priority of Grants: A grant/allotment first in time overrides a subsequent one (Awoyogbe v. Ogbeide).
- Certificate of Occupancy: It is prima facie, not conclusive, evidence of title and may be nullified if wrongly issued (Ezeanah v. Atta; Osazuwa v. Ojo).
- Equitable Interest: Unregistered conveyance gives only an equitable interest, defeasible by a bona fide purchaser without notice, but sufficient to ground a claim where unchallenged (Atanda v. Commissioner for Lands & Housing).
Court Findings
The Court found that the Claimant provided credible, uncontroverted evidence of acquisition and possession of the disputed 100ft by 100ft parcel since 2011. Exhibit A’s 2011 allocation predated the 1st Defendant’s 2015 approval. Exhibit D confirmed community resolution acknowledging the Claimant’s priority and resolving earlier encroachment by the 1st Defendant. Exhibit B (Deed of Transfer) vested an equitable interest, supported by ongoing acts of ownership—construction of two flats and a survey (Exhibit C).
The 2nd Defendant’s Certificate of Occupancy (Exhibit I) in favor of the 1st Defendant was erroneously granted despite the Claimant’s timely objection (Exhibit E) and protest (Exhibit F). Under established law, such a certificate is only prima facie evidence and must yield to superior equitable rights. The Claimant’s unchallenged documentary and physical evidence satisfied the minimal burden in an undefended suit.
On injunction, proof of trespass by the 1st Defendant entitled the Claimant to a perpetual injunction restraining further encroachment.
Conclusion
The sole issue was resolved in favour of the Claimant. Judgment was entered as follows:
- A declaration that the Claimant is entitled to statutory right of occupancy over the land described in Survey Plan No. TDN/ED/219/2021 (dated 2021-02-11).
- A declaration that the 2nd Defendant’s grant of Certificate No. EDL61823 to the 1st Defendant is null and void.
- An order revoking Certificate of Occupancy No. EDL61823.
- An order directing the 2nd Defendant to issue a Certificate of Occupancy to the Claimant.
- A perpetual injunction restraining the 1st Defendant and privies from further trespass.
- Costs of ₦200,000 awarded against the 1st Defendant in favour of the Claimant.
Significance
This decision underscores key principles in land law: the primacy of first-in-time allocations, the weight of unchallenged evidence, and the non-conclusive nature of Certificates of Occupancy. It affirms that equitable interests arising from unregistered transfers and acts of ownership can defeat later legal grants, offering guidance for litigants and land administrators on prioritizing community allocations and responding to objections.