Background
The Claimant, Mr. Christopher Akim Basky Olumese, sued by his attorney Mr. Godswill Asian, instituted this land suit on 26 April 2021 (Writ of Summons) and filed an Amended Statement of Claim on 26 November 2021. He traced his title to a 100ft by 200ft parcel (1,641.50m²) at Amagba Community, Oredo LGA, Edo State by an initial allocation dated 10 October 2009 to Mr. Monday Ehigie, a subsequent sale on 31 December 2014 to Mr. Ernest Akpomedaye, and a Deed of Conveyance dated 28 April 2017 transferring the land to the Claimant. A Certificate of Occupancy No. 7f7a1 was issued on 5 October 2020 and registered officially on 5 November 2020. The Defendants, Mr. Peter Erimwinrose and Mr. Aghasomwan Uwuigbe, alleged representatives of the People of Amagba Community, allegedly trespassed on part of this land, destroyed the existing fence, and erected a new fence to demarcate a portion for themselves. Despite multiple hearing notices, the Defendants neither entered an appearance nor filed any defence. At trial, the Claimant’s attorney testified and tendered nine exhibits (A–I), including title documents, survey plans, receipts, and a settlement agreement signed by the Defendants, before closing the Claimant’s case. The case proceeded undefended.
Issues
- Whether the Claimant has proved ownership and title to the land in dispute on a preponderance of evidence.
- Whether the Claimant is entitled to the reliefs sought, including declarations of title and trespass, exclusive possession, and a perpetual injunction.
Ratio Decidendi
The Court’s decision rests on two key principles:
- Permanence of a Certificate of Occupancy: A valid Certificate of Occupancy is prima facie evidence of title. Once issued and unchallenged, it establishes the grantee’s exclusive right of occupation and excludes all others until set aside by due process.
- Weight of Uncontested Evidence: Where a defendant defaults, the claimant’s evidence, if credible, unchallenged, and cogent, may satisfy the burden of proof on a minimum of proof basis, without requiring corroboration.
The Court also reiterated that title may be proved by any one of the five independent modes established in Idundun v Okumagba (1976):
- Production of documents of title;
- Proof of acts of ownership;
- Possession of adjacent land;
- Acts of long possession and enjoyment;
- Traditional evidence of communal or customary ownership.
Court Findings
After evaluating the unchallenged testimony and documentary evidence, the Court found:
- The Claimant’s title documents—Deed of Conveyance (Exhibit D), Property Survey Plan (Exhibit E), Emolu receipt (Exhibit F), and Certificate of Occupancy (Exhibit G)—were authentic, admitted into evidence, and uncontroverted.
- The Certificate of Occupancy, unchallenged by the Defendants, established the Claimant’s legal title and exclusive possession of the 1,641.50m² parcel at Amagba Community.
- The Claimant’s evidence of uninterrupted possession since acquisition until the Defendants’ intrusion demonstrated acts of ownership and long possession, reinforcing his title.
- The Defendants’ actions—demolishing the Claimant’s fence and erecting a new boundary—constituted trespass per se, as they lacked any better right to possession.
- An order of perpetual injunction was necessary to prevent further breaches of the Claimant’s possessory rights.
Conclusion
Resolving the sole issue, the Court ruled in favour of the Claimant and granted:
- A declaration that the Claimant is the owner entitled to exclusive possession of the specified land by virtue of Certificate of Occupancy No. 7f7a1.
- A declaration that the Defendants’ entry, fence destruction, and boundary erection constituted actionable trespass.
- A perpetual injunction restraining the Defendants, their agents, servants, or privies from trespassing, possessing, or undertaking any construction on the land.
- An express order granting the Claimant exclusive possession of the parcel described in the Certificate of Occupancy and Survey Plan No. SEA/ED/D.236/2021.
Significance
This judgment reinforces the primacy of a Certificate of Occupancy as conclusive, prima facie proof of title under Nigerian land law and clarifies that unchallenged, credible evidence by an absent defendant may satisfy the burden of proof on minimal evidence. It affirms the judiciary’s willingness to protect possessory rights via perpetual injunctions once trespass is established. The case serves as a reminder to litigants of the importance of timely challenging title documents and the enduring legal weight of statutory grants of occupancy.