Background
By Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim filed on 20 March 2017, Emmanuel Ebadan (1st Claimant) and Oziegbe Abure (2nd Claimant) sued Kelly Oriri (Defendant/Counter-Claimant) over a parcel of land known as Ukpofaan-Eko, Idunhun-ehan, Arue, Uromi, Edo State. The Claimants sought declarations of title, nullification of a customary decision by the Onojie of Uromi, damages for trespass and destruction of economic trees, and a perpetual injunction. The Defendant counter-claimed, asserting title by traditional inheritance over approximately 1500ft × 2000ft of land at Idikhumun Uzenema-Arue, claiming general damages and an injunction against the Claimants’ alleged trespass.
Issues
- Whether the Claimants proved, on the balance of probabilities, their title to the disputed land by traditional history, acts of possession, and a litigation survey plan.
- Whether the Defendant established a better title by his version of traditional history, exclusive possession through a caretaker, and boundary evidence.
- The validity of the Onojie’s decision absent fair hearing.
- Entitlement to damages and injunction for trespass.
Ratio Decidendi
- Title to land may be proved by one of five methods: documents of title, traditional history, acts of ownership, possession of adjacent land, or long possession. Any single method may suffice.
- Where rival parties offer conflicting traditional histories, the Kojo v. Bonsie rule requires the Court to invoke evidence of recent possession to determine the more credible version.
- A litigation survey plan, when unchallenged, establishes certain identification of land.
- Exclusive possession presumes title (Evidence Act, s.143), and trespass is actionable by the person in possession.
- Customary adjudication decisions are null if made without fair hearing (Constitutional right to fair hearing).
Court Findings
The Court found that Claimants’ Exhibit B (litigation survey plan) clearly delineated the land boundaries. Oral evidence by the caretaker (2nd Claimant) and neighbours confirmed long, undisputed possession on behalf of the 1st Claimant since the 1950s and reservation of building and farming plots with the Claimant’s consent. The customary decision by the Onojie was made without hearing the Claimants and violated their right to fair hearing, rendering it void. Although the Defendant traced a traditional line of title from "Pa. Ukpudo" over 150 years prior, his genealogy was impeached by uncontroverted evidence that his grandfather was an adopted stranger in Arue and that no uninterrupted chain of devolution was proved. Under Kojo v. Bonsie, the Court preferred the Claimants’ recent possession evidence over the Defendant’s traditional history. Having found in favour of the Claimants, the Counter-Claim failed as evidence was intertwined.
Conclusion
The 1st Claimant, Emmanuel Ebadan, was declared owner in possession under Uromi native law and custom of the disputed land, and the only person entitled to apply for statutory right of occupancy. The Onojie’s ruling was nullified. The Defendant’s entry, cutting of trees and sale of plots was trespass. The Court granted a perpetual injunction and awarded general damages of ₦2,000,000.00. The Defendant’s counter-claim was dismissed and Claimants were awarded ₦100,000.00 costs.
Significance
This decision underscores the primacy of certain land identification via survey plan, the hierarchy of proof methods in land disputes, and use of recent possession to resolve competing ancestral histories. It also affirms that customary rulings must respect constitutional fair hearing. The case serves as authoritative guidance on land title disputes in Edo State and beyond.