Background
By writ dated 2012-08-02, the Incorporated Trustees of Ladies of St. Mulumba Nigeria (the Claimant) sued Mr. Edeno Ekhator (the Defendant) for a declaration of title to a parcel of land in Ward 40/B Aduwawa Area, Benin City, Oredo LGA, Edo State, measuring approximately 8,235.285 sq. meters. The Claimant relied on an Oba of Benin’s gift letter (1994) and a Certificate of Occupancy (1997), on which it built a girls’ secondary school. The Defendant countered that his own land, granted by Oba’s approval (1977) and certified by a 1990 Certificate of Occupancy, encompassed the school site. Both parties frontloaded depositions and documents under the 2012 Civil Procedure Rules.
Issues
- Whether the land on which the Claimant’s school stands belongs to the Claimant or the Defendant.
- Whether the Claimant discharged the onus of proving its title by a preponderance of evidence.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that, in disputes where parties file separate survey plans showing conflicting land boundaries, the claimant must file a composite survey plan to establish the precise location of the disputed land beyond doubt. Failure to do so is fatal to the claimant’s case.
Court Findings
- Both parties produced Certificates of Occupancy with attached survey plans: the Claimant’s C of O (No. EDSR 12833) with Plan MWC/19/94, and the Defendant’s C of O with Plan LAY/BD/163/90.
- Neither party was ad idem as to the land’s identity; the Claimant did not file a composite plan, whereas the Defendant tendered Composite Plan Exhibit H, prepared by the state Surveyor‐General’s office.
- The court credited the unchallenged evidence of DW2 (the government surveyor) that Exhibit H showed the plots were distinct and that the school site fell within the Defendant’s green‐verged parcel, not the Claimant’s blue‐verged parcel.
- The Claimant’s reliance solely on its own plan, without a composite overlay, left the identity of the disputed land unproven.
Conclusion
The Claimant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that its land grant encompassed the school site. Its failure to file a composite survey plan was fatal. The suit was dismissed in its entirety, with costs of ₦50,000 awarded to the Defendant.
Significance
This decision underscores the necessity for a party claiming land title—when competing survey plans exist—to file a composite plan integrating all relevant surveys. It affirms that a claimant cannot succeed on the weakness of the defense and must establish its claim with certainty. The ruling reinforces the principle that precise identification of disputed land is a prerequisite to any declaration of title.