CITEC INTERNATIONAL ESTATES LTD. & ANOR. V. STYLES TRENDS AND FASHION LTD. & ORS. (2022)

Background

This appeal arose from a dispute over Plot 1851, measuring approximately 4.99 hectares and situated at Cadastral Zone C06, Mbora, Abuja, Federal Capital Territory. Styles Trends and Fashion Limited and its officers commenced proceedings before the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, claiming that they were entitled to the land and had been unlawfully dispossessed or interfered with by Citec International Estates Limited and Mr. Jinadu Nurudeen. The respondents alleged that, on 5 June 2012, persons acting for the appellants entered the property, assaulted their personnel, damaged a mobile telephone, removed iron rods and covered up excavation works. They claimed substantial damages for trespass, assault, intimidation, mental anguish and trauma, the value of the damaged telephone and iron rods, the cost of excavation, and a perpetual injunction.

The appellants denied the claims and filed a counter-claim. They asserted that Citec was the lawful allottee and beneficial owner of a much larger parcel of land at Mbora District, relying principally on a Construction Agreement, a Development Lease Agreement, Terms of Settlement in earlier litigation, and related correspondence and survey documents. They sought declarations of title and possessory rights, damages for alleged trespass and abuse of process, exemplary and aggravated damages, interest, an injunction and costs.

In its judgment delivered on 5 June 2015, the trial court dismissed the appellants’ counter-claim. It also dismissed the claims relating to the respondents’ telephone and iron rods, but awarded the respondents N2,000,000 for trespass, N1,000,000 for assault, mental anguish and trauma, and N250,000 for excavation works. A perpetual injunction was granted against further trespass. The appellants appealed to the Court of Appeal.

Issues

1. Whether the trial court was wrong to hold that the respondents had possession and a better or beneficial title to the disputed land.
2. Whether the awards of damages for trespass, assault, mental anguish, trauma and excavation, together with the injunction, were justified.
3. Whether the dismissal of the appellants’ counter-claim was erroneous.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal unanimously dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment of the High Court. The court restated the recognised methods of proving title to land: traditional evidence; production of a duly authenticated document of title; acts of ownership extending over a sufficient period and being sufficiently numerous and positive to justify an inference of ownership; acts of long possession and enjoyment; and possession of connected or adjacent land in circumstances making ownership of the disputed land probable. A claimant need not establish all five methods. Proof of any one method, however, must be cogent, satisfactory and conclusive.

Where a party relies on traditional evidence, that party must establish the founder of the land, the manner in which the land was founded or discovered, and the history of its devolution to the present claimant. In a contest where both parties assert exclusive ownership, neither can succeed merely by pointing to weaknesses in the opponent’s case. Each must establish a root of title or a legally recognisable basis for ownership. There can be no concurrent possession by persons claiming adversely to one another; one party must have the better title or right of occupancy.

The court held that the respondents’ Offer of Statutory Right of Occupancy, tendered as Exhibit A and dated 23 February 2010, provided a legally recognisable basis for their interest in the land. By contrast, the appellants’ construction agreement, development lease and terms of settlement did not, on the evidence, confer a statutory right of occupancy or vest title in the disputed plot. In the Federal Capital Territory, land is vested in the Federal Government, while the power to grant statutory rights of occupancy is exercised through the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory or a properly authorised delegate.

Applying section 299 of the Constitution, the court explained that Abuja has the constitutional status of a State. The Minister of the Federal Capital Territory occupies a position analogous to that of a State Governor for relevant purposes, and the Federal Capital Development Authority is an agency of the Federal Capital Territory. Accordingly, an authorised official of the FCTA may sign an allocation document on behalf of the Minister where the power has been delegated.

Court Findings

The appellate court found no basis for describing the trial court’s decision as perverse. An appellant alleging inadequate evaluation of evidence must show that the trial court improperly used or failed to use its opportunity to see and hear the witnesses, failed to ascribe probative value to material evidence, or drew wrong inferences leading to an unjust conclusion. A finding of fact involves both perception—receiving and observing the evidence—and evaluation—assessing its weight in the surrounding circumstances. These functions primarily belong to the trial court, particularly regarding oral testimony and witness demeanour. An appellate court should therefore be slow to interfere unless the evaluation was plainly defective. Documentary evidence, however, may be evaluated by both the trial and appellate courts.

The Court of Appeal also held that the respondents’ failure to file a respondent’s brief did not automatically entitle the appellants to judgment. Under Order 19 rule 2 of the Court of Appeal Rules 2021, an appellant must file a brief within 45 days of service of the record, while a respondent ordinarily has 30 days after service of the appellant’s brief to file a respondent’s brief. Nevertheless, the appeal remained one to be determined on its merits. The court considered the appellants’ arguments in the interest of justice and found them insufficient.

The awards for trespass, assault, mental anguish, trauma and excavation were supported by the evidence, and the trial judge had exercised the judicial discretion to award damages properly. The dismissal of the counter-claim was also correct because the appellants had not proved their alleged title, possession or entitlement to damages.

Conclusion

The appeal was held to be unmeritorious and was dismissed unanimously. The judgment of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory in Suit No. FCT/HC/CV/4184/2012 was affirmed in its entirety. The Court of Appeal made no order as to costs.

Significance

The decision reinforces the importance of proving a legally valid root of title in land litigation, especially within the Federal Capital Territory. Agreements, settlements or development arrangements may evidence dealings concerning land, but they do not necessarily amount to a statutory grant or proof of title. The case also confirms that an appellate complaint of perversity requires a demonstrated failure of evaluation, not merely disagreement with the trial court’s conclusions. Finally, the decision clarifies that the absence of a respondent’s brief does not transform an appeal into an automatic victory for the appellant.