JOSHUA OGUNLEYE V. BABATAYO ONI (1990)

Background

The appellant claimed damages for trespass and a perpetual injunction in respect of land at Arikese, Osu, Oyo State. He relied on an alleged customary grant made by the Osu Community on 16 January 1978, evidenced by Exhibit A, and on a certificate of occupancy issued by the Oyo State Government on 27 June 1983, evidenced by Exhibit B.

The respondent denied the appellant's title and claimed that the land had been granted to his father by the Ahere/Arikese people of Osu in 1936. The respondent asserted that his father occupied and developed the land, and that he inherited it after his father's death in 1947. The respondent also pleaded that Osu was a collection of separate descent groups and was not itself a land-owning community capable of granting the disputed land.

The High Court of Oyo State, Ilesha, preferred the appellant's evidence and awarded damages for trespass. The Court of Appeal, Ibadan, reversed that decision and dismissed the claim. The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court.

Issues

1. Whether the appellant proved a better title or right to possession than the respondent in an action for trespass and injunction.
2. Whether a person relying on a customary grant must plead and prove the root of title of the grantor when that title is disputed.
3. Whether the certificate of occupancy issued to the appellant conferred title or displaced the respondent's earlier interest in the land.
4. Whether the Court of Appeal properly evaluated the evidence and whether the proceedings were defective for non-joinder of necessary parties.

Ratio Decidendi

A claim for trespass and injunction places the general burden on the plaintiff to establish ownership, exclusive possession, or a better title than that asserted by the defendant. Where the defendant claims ownership, it is insufficient for the plaintiff merely to prove a grant; the plaintiff must prove a better title.

Proof of a grant is one method of proving title, but production of a deed or document of grant is not conclusive where the grantor's title is challenged. The plaintiff must plead and prove the origin and validity of the grantor's title, unless that title has been admitted or established. Evidence of customary law that departs from the pleadings goes to no issue.

A certificate of occupancy under the Land Use Act is generally prima facie evidence of a right of occupancy and exclusive possession, but the presumption is rebuttable. It does not, by itself, create title in a person who had no title or valid interest to convey. The court may inquire into the validity of the holder's prior title and may ignore or set aside the certificate where another person had the better pre-existing right.

Under the transitional provisions of the Land Use Act, a person who held developed urban land before the Act commenced was deemed to hold a statutory right of occupancy. That earlier deemed right was superior to the appellant's later certificate of occupancy because the respondent and his predecessor had been in possession before the Act and their right had not been revoked under section 28.

Court Findings

The Supreme Court found that the appellant's pleadings did not explain how the Osu Community acquired ownership of the land. The late amendment alleging that the land had formerly been a market did not establish communal ownership or the root of title. The use of land as a market did not, without more, prove that it belonged to the community.

The respondent's detailed account of the seven descent groups at Osu, the Ahere/Arikese ownership of the area, the 1936 grant to his father, the development and occupation of the land, and his subsequent inheritance was substantially unchallenged. The trial judge therefore erred by treating the appellant's grant as proof of a better title and by placing an improper burden on the respondent.

The Court of Appeal was entitled to reconsider and evaluate the evidence because the trial court had failed to do so properly. The Supreme Court also held that the action could be effectively determined between the existing parties, so non-joinder of the alleged grantors was not a basis for striking out the action.

Conclusion

The appeal was unanimously dismissed. The decision of the Court of Appeal, which set aside the High Court judgment and dismissed the appellant's claims, was upheld. The appellant was ordered to pay ₦500 costs to the respondent.

Significance

The decision establishes that a certificate of occupancy is not necessarily a certificate of title and cannot validate a grant made by a person or community without title. It also clarifies the distinction between occupation, possession, and title, the evidential burden in customary land claims, the continuing protection of pre-existing land rights under the Land Use Act, and the duty of appellate courts to evaluate evidence where the trial court has failed to do so.