IKUNGA V. KURUBO (2015)

Background

This appeal arose from a land dispute concerning a parcel known as Ohia-Mini, situated along Stadium Road, Rumuomasi, in the Obio/Akpor Local Government Area of Rivers State. The appellants sued in a representative capacity, claiming that they and the Ikunga family were owners of the land and entitled to the statutory right of occupancy over it. They alleged that their father, Chief Emmanuel Ikunga, a native of Rumuomasi, had deforested the land around 1960 and thereafter exercised acts of ownership, including farming, harvesting economic trees and hunting on the property.

The appellants sought declarations of ownership, an order setting aside any instrument granting the land to the respondent, N10,000,000 in special and general damages for trespass, and a perpetual injunction. The respondent denied their allegations and counterclaimed, relying principally on a Certificate of Occupancy registered as No. 51 at page 51 in Volume 175. He also sought declarations of ownership and injunction, damages for trespass, legal costs and interest. The Rivers State High Court dismissed the appellants’ claims and granted part of the respondent’s counterclaim. The appellants appealed to the Court of Appeal.

Issues

1. Whether the trial court wrongly required the appellants to prove how Rumuomasi community was founded and how their family became part of it.
2. Whether the pleadings required the appellants to trace their title to the founders of Rumuomasi or prove additional customary law relating to land acquired by deforestation.
3. Whether the trial court wrongly rejected evidence of acts of ownership and possession concerning the disputed land and adjoining lands.
4. Whether, on the pleadings and evidence, the trial court was right to dismiss the appellants’ claims and uphold the respondent’s title and injunction.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that pleadings serve to identify, with reasonable certainty, the matters in dispute and those on which the parties agree. Once the appellants pleaded that their father acquired the land by deforestation and became its original owner under Ikwerre Native Law and Custom, title became a central issue requiring proof. A claimant seeking a declaration of title must succeed on the strength of his or her own case and cannot rely merely on perceived weaknesses in the defence.

The court restated the five recognised methods of proving title to land: traditional evidence; production of a valid and authenticated document of title; proof of numerous and positive acts of ownership extending over a sufficient period; proof of long possession and enjoyment; and proof of possession of connected or adjacent land in circumstances suggesting ownership of the disputed land. Each method is independently capable of establishing title, but the claimant must lead credible evidence bringing the case within one or more of them.

The court further emphasised the relationship between pleadings and evidence. Every material averment must be supported by evidence, and the evidence must correspond with the pleaded case. An averment unsupported by evidence is treated as abandoned, while evidence on a matter not supported by pleadings is legally worthless. Since the appellants relied on a customary rule that deforestation conferred ownership, they were required by section 18 of the Evidence Act 2011 to prove that custom as a question of fact.

Court Findings

The court found that the appellants’ evidence was insufficient to establish their customary title. The assertion that their father deforested the land around 1960, without a connected traditional history or satisfactory proof of the alleged custom, did not demonstrate a valid root of title. The trial judge was therefore entitled to conclude that the appellants had failed to prove ownership.

In contrast, the respondent produced the Certificate of Occupancy issued in respect of the land, together with documents showing his authority to administer the estate of George Kurubo. The Certificate of Occupancy and its accompanying survey plan were properly pleaded and were not effectively challenged. Under the Land Use Act, land in each State is vested in the Governor to be held in trust and administered for the use and benefit of Nigerians. A Certificate of Occupancy properly issued by the competent authority raises a presumption that its holder has an exclusive right of possession and that no person had a better title when it was issued.

That presumption is rebuttable where a claimant proves a better existing title or demonstrates that the certificate was wrongly issued. The appellants failed to produce evidence capable of rebutting the respondent’s certificate. The court also observed that the Rivers State Government, which granted the right of occupancy, was not joined as a party. The appellants could not effectively attack the validity of the governmental grant without joining the grantor.

An appellate court generally does not interfere with findings based on the trial court’s assessment of witnesses, because the trial court has the advantage of seeing and hearing them. Interference is justified only where the findings are perverse, unsupported by credible evidence, or based on inadmissible evidence. No such error was shown in this case.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeal unanimously dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment of the Rivers State High Court delivered on 17 July 2012 in Suit No. PHC/1390/2004. The respondent’s Certificate of Occupancy was regarded as valid and subsisting, while the appellants failed to establish a superior customary title. No order as to costs was made.

Significance

The decision illustrates the evidential burden in Nigerian land litigation. A claimant relying on customary acquisition by deforestation must plead and prove the relevant custom and provide evidence linking the alleged acts of possession to ownership. The case also confirms that a Certificate of Occupancy is powerful prima facie evidence of title, although it may be displaced by proof of a pre-existing and superior title. Finally, the decision reinforces that courts are confined by the parties’ pleadings and that appellate courts will respect properly supported factual findings of trial courts.