GRACE EDOBOR V. ONAIWU IDUEROBO & PERSONS UNKNOWN (2024)

Background

On 2024-03-18, the High Court of Justice of Edo State (Benin Division) delivered judgment in Suit No. B/880/2022. The Claimant, Grace Edobor, sued the 1st Defendant, Onaiwu Iduerobo, and the 2nd Defendant, Persons Unknown, for trespass to her parcel of land measuring 100 feet by 200 feet at Ward 36/A, Ugbor Village, Oredo LGA, Edo State. She sought:

1. General damages of ₦100,000,000 for trespass and destruction of economic crops;
2. Perpetual injunction restraining further entry or interference on the said land.

The Claimant filed her Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim on 2022-09-05 (filed 2023-09-13). The Defendants were served but did not enter appearance or file a defence. Evidence proceeded in default.

Issues

1. Whether the Claimant proved her case on the preponderance of evidence;
2. Whether the Defendants’ acts constituted actionable trespass;
3. What reliefs, if any, the Claimant is entitled to based on unchallenged evidence.

Ratio Decidendi

1. A person in exclusive possession of land is entitled to sue for trespass even without a declaration of title (Pius Amakor v. Obiefuna).
2. A Certificate of Occupancy is prima facie proof of title to land (Ilona v. Idakwo), subject only to being set aside or displaced by a better title.
3. Unchallenged, cogent, credible evidence of possession and ownership is sufficient to establish title and right to relief (Monkom v. Odili; Adeleke v. Iyanda).
4. General damages for trespass are actionable per se and assessed by reference to a reasonable person’s judgment, even without proof of specific loss.

Court Findings

The Court evaluated the uncontradicted testimony of CW1, Mr. Godwin Ogbaburhon, and admitted Exhibits:

• Exhibit A: Certificate of Occupancy No. EDSR 13433;
• Exhibit A1: Survey Plan No. ISO/ED/713/93;
• Exhibit C: Caveat lodged at EDOGIS.

The evidence established that since acquisition in 1996, the Claimant was in exclusive, peaceful possession of the land, exercising acts of ownership by surveying, erecting a fence, planting and harvesting arable crops annually without interruption. On 2022-08-14, the Defendants deposited sand, molded blocks, and erected structures on part of the land without consent. The Claimant’s efforts to notify and resolve the dispute through community elders, police petition, and caveat proved futile. No defence or counter-evidence was presented by the Defendants.

The Court held that the Claimant satisfied her burden of proof by:

1. Producing title documents (Certificate of Occupancy and Survey Plan).
2. Proving long, undisturbed acts of ownership and possession.
3. Demonstrating that the Defendants’ actions amounted to trespass.

Conclusion

The Court resolved the sole issue in favour of the Claimant and entered judgment:

1. Awarded ₦3,000,000.00 as general (nominal) damages for trespass and destruction of crops.
2. Granted a perpetual injunction restraining the Defendants, their agents, privies or assigns from entering or interfering with the Claimant’s land as delineated in Survey Plan No. ISO/ED/713/93.
3. Ordered costs of ₦200,000.00 in favour of the Claimant.

Significance

This decision underscores key principles in land law: the sufficiency of a Certificate of Occupancy and Survey Plan to establish prima facie title; the entitlement of a person in actual possession to sue in trespass; and the entitlement to general damages and injunction as of right once trespass is proved. It affirms that unchallenged evidence, even minimal, can sustain a claim where the defendant absents, and highlights the efficacy of a caveat and community mediation before resorting to court reliefs.