Background
This judgment arises from a land dispute between Austine Ayemere Ojemen ("claimant") and Jude Nosagie ("defendant"). Both parties derived title from a common predecessor, Queen Eson Akenzua, the then Iye-oba of Benin, who held a large parcel at Okha Village, Ikpoba-Okha LGA of Edo State. The claimant leased, by customary sale in 1978, a 600ft by 500ft portion of the land, duly surveyed (Plan OM4306/1974) and approved by the Oba. The defendant acquired a 300ft by 1000ft plot by conveyance in 1994 and later obtained Certificate of Occupancy No. BDSR 14688 (Plan ISO/ED/87/94).
The claimant sued for a declaration of statutory right of occupancy over 3.025 hectares lying between the New Expressway and the Old Benin-Sapele Road, damages for trespass, continued possession, perpetual injunction and setting aside of the defendant’s C of O. The defendant counter-claimed for a declaration of his right of occupancy over 2.873 hectares, damages, and injunction.
Issues
- Whether the defendant proved his counter-claim title to 2.873 hectares (Plan ISO/ED/87/94).
- Whether a valid customary arbitration occurred between the parties.
- Whether the claimant’s title, earlier in time, is superior to the defendant’s.
- Whether the claimant is entitled to the reliefs claimed.
Ratio Decidendi
- A certificate of occupancy is prima facie but not conclusive proof of title and may be nullified if wrongly obtained (Otukpo v John, 2012).
- Title by customary sale or grant must be supported by survey plans showing clear boundaries and beacon re-establishment (Idundun v Okumagba, 1976).
- Customary arbitration requires: voluntary submission, agreement to be bound (or to resile), decision in accordance with custom, publication of award, and acceptance at the time (Egesimba v Onuzuike, 2002; Duruaku Eke v Udeazor, 2001).
- In competing claims, the claimant with the better identified land by credible surveys prevails notwithstanding a C of O (Isamotu A. Ashiru v Adetoun Olukoya, 2006).
Court Findings
The court compared the survey plans: the Queen mother’s 1974 Plan (Exhibit B) depicted two distinct parcels. The claimant’s subsequent Plan ZEKKO/0337/2005 (Exhibit D) and litigation survey Plan (Exhibit F) accurately re-established beacons MG1270, MG1269, MG1259, MG1258, confirming his parcel red-inked in Exhibit F. The defendant’s Plan ISO/ED/87/94 (Exhibits G–G3) had beacon numbers BOAD4322, 4320, 4319, 4317 which did not correspond to the predecessor’s beacons, and no surveyor was called to explain discrepancies.
The court held that the claimant proved the identity and boundaries of his land better than the defendant, who relied solely on a Certificate of Occupancy. Following Otukpo v John, the C of O was prima facie and could not prevail over superior survey evidence.
On customary arbitration, the court found that although the parties sought the Oba’s Palace intervention and a decision was published (Exhibit H2), the claimant resiled by instituting this suit, showing he did not accept the award. The essential elements of binding arbitration were therefore not met.
Conclusion
The court declared that the claimant is entitled to statutory right of occupancy over the 3.025-hectare parcel delineated in Exhibit F and granted continued possession. It restrained the defendant from further trespass by perpetual injunction. It refused to set aside the defendant’s Certificate of Occupancy as it covered a separate parcel. The defendant’s counter-claim (declaration of right, damages, injunction) was dismissed.
Significance
This decision underscores the primacy of accurate survey evidence and beacon re-establishment in competing land title disputes, over exclusive reliance on certificates of occupancy. It clarifies the requirements for a valid customary arbitration to be binding, affirming a party’s right to resile by pursuing judicial remedies. The case reinforces that title granted earlier in time, properly surveyed and identified, will prevail.