Background
This dispute arises from competing claims to a parcel of land measuring approximately 3,447.184 sq. meters, situated at Abokor Street, Agenebode. The Claimant, Mr. Donatus Arewa, asserted ownership through unbroken customary descent starting from his great-grandfather, Abokor, who first deforested and farmed the larger tract. Successive descendants—Osikwemhe, Arewah, and Ikhamate K. Arewah (the Claimant’s father)—held and developed the land, granting portions to religious and community institutions, planting economic trees, constructing an underground well and house, and obtaining a 1986 survey (Exhibit C) and customary right of occupancy in 1987. Upon his father’s death in 2007, the Claimant commissioned a litigation survey plan (Exhibit A) and brought this suit seeking:
- A declaration of title over the red-marked parcel;
- N4,000,000 damages for trespass;
- A perpetual injunction against further trespass.
The Defendant, Mr. Dekhe Coleman, countered that his own ancestors—beginning with Ighiadebo and passing to Ugbemor, Francis Dekhe, Mark Uduimoh, and ultimately himself—deforested, possessed, farmed, and sold parts of the same land. He alleged that Ikhamate Arewah’s predecessors repeatedly trespassed, that a customary arbitration in 2004 (Exhibit G) favored him, and that he had sold parcels to third parties in reliance on that award.
Issues
- Whether the Claimant proved title by traditional evidence and acts of possession;
- Whether the purported customary arbitration estopped the Claimant;
- Whether the Defendant established title by tradition, long possession or sales;
- Whether the Claimant was entitled to damages and an injunction for trespass.
Ratio Decidendi
The Court applied settled principles:
- Five methods to prove title: traditional evidence; authenticated documents; acts of ownership; long possession; and possession of adjacent land (Idundun v. Okumagba).
- Claimant need only establish one or more methods.
- Traditional history must show a continuous genealogical chain, free of unexplained gaps (Dagaci of Dere v. Dagaci of Ebwa).
- Customary arbitration binds only if parties voluntarily submit, are notified before, and do not repudiate the award (Odonigi v. Oyeleke).
- Any unauthorized entry onto land in peaceful possession constitutes trespass, warranting damages (Echare v. Ezirike).
Court Findings
The Court found the Claimant’s account of unbroken descent—from Abokor through successive heirs to himself—fully corroborated by his own testimony and that of CW2. Key acts of possession were proven: the 1986 survey (Exhibit C), planting of economic trees, construction of a well (admitted by the Defendant), and grants to third parties. The Defendant’s traditional history was inconsistent, shifting responsibility for deforestation among ancestors. His customary arbitration award (Exhibit G) was flawed: it pre-dated the formal notice (Exhibit F), contained contradictory statements about his father’s employment, and lacked voluntary submission by the Claimant’s side. The Court thus rejected Exhibit G as a bar to litigation. Having preferred the Claimant’s evidence on both traditional history and acts of possession, the Court held he established title on a balance of probabilities. The Defendant was found to have trespassed by selling parts of the Claimant’s land after 2007.
Conclusion
- Declaration that Donatus Arewa is the owner of the 3,447.184 sq. meter parcel (Survey Plan GOA/ED10/14) and entitled to statutory right of occupancy.
- Award of ₦500,000 as damages for trespass.
- Perpetual injunction restraining the Defendant, his agents, servants or privies from further trespass.
- Cost assessed at ₦30,000 in favor of the Claimant.
Significance
This judgment underscores the primacy of coherent traditional evidence and demonstrable acts of possession in customary land disputes. It clarifies the limited effect of flawed customary arbitration absent proper notice and voluntary submission, and reaffirms the Court’s power to award damages and injunctions for trespass even where customary processes have been invoked. Practitioners are reminded to rigorously verify genealogical chains and procedural compliance in arbitration before treating such awards as conclusive.