Background
This action was commenced by Mr. Frank Ogbomo, suing through his lawful attorney, Mr. Aziegbemhin Emmanuel, against a defendant described as Person Unknown. The suit was filed at the High Court of Justice of Edo State, Benin Judicial Division, and was heard by Hon. Justice P.A. Akhihiero. The claim arose from a dispute over a parcel of land measuring 200 feet by 200 feet at Uroho Village, Ikpoba-Okha Local Government Area, Edo State. The claimant asserted ownership based on a Deed of Transfer, a survey plan, a Certificate of Occupancy, and related documents. He alleged that after acquiring the land, he developed it by constructing a two-bedroom flat and fencing the property.
The claimant’s case was that sometime in November 2021, his attorney visited the land and discovered that an unknown person had entered the land, destroyed part of the fence, and deposited sand and blocks on the property. A petition was then written to the police, but the alleged trespasser could not be identified or apprehended. The claimant therefore sought declaratory, injunctive, and monetary reliefs for trespass, destruction of his fence, and continuing interference with his possession.
Issues
The court considered whether the claimant had proved his case sufficiently to obtain the reliefs sought. The main questions were:
- Whether the claimant proved ownership of the land on the balance of probabilities.
- Whether the defendant was liable for trespass on the claimant’s land.
- Whether the claimant was entitled to the declarations, injunctions, and damages claimed.
The defendant, despite being served with originating processes and hearing notices, did not appear, file a defence, or call any witness. The matter therefore proceeded as an undefended suit.
Ratio Decidendi
The court reiterated that in civil claims, including land disputes, the standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities or preponderance of evidence. It also restated the accepted five ways of proving title to land, namely: traditional evidence, documents of title, acts of ownership, proof of possession of adjacent land, and long possession and enjoyment. The claimant relied mainly on documents of title, acts of ownership, and long possession.
The court held that the claimant’s Certificate of Occupancy, admitted as Exhibit E, was prima facie evidence of title. Since the defendant offered no challenge to the authenticity or validity of that document, the court accepted it as sufficient proof of ownership. The court also accepted the survey plan and deed of transfer as supporting documents showing the identity of the land and the claimant’s chain of title.
On trespass, the court stated that trespass is any unjustified interference with possession, however slight. Once ownership and possession are shown, and the defendant cannot prove a better title, entry onto the land or dumping of materials amounts to trespass. The court found that the presence of sand and blocks on the land, together with the destruction complained of, constituted continuous trespass.
However, the claim for special damages of N5,000,000 failed. The court held that special damages must be strictly pleaded and strictly proved with credible evidence. Mere allegation of destruction, without specific evidence of how the sum claimed arose, was insufficient. By contrast, the court awarded general damages, reasoning that trespass naturally causes discomfort and disturbance and that the claimant had shown sufficient basis for compensation.
Court Findings
The court found that the claimant’s evidence was unchallenged and uncontroverted, and therefore credible. It accepted that the claimant established title to the land and proved possession. It further held that the defendant’s acts amounted to continuous trespass. The court granted:
- A declaration that the claimant is the bona fide owner of the land.
- A declaration that the defendant’s acts amounted to continuous trespass.
- A perpetual injunction restraining further trespass and related acts.
- A further perpetual injunction restraining dissipation or sale of the land.
- General damages of N1,000,000 only.
- Costs of N200,000 against the defendant.
The claim for special damages was refused in full.
Conclusion
Judgment was entered partly in favour of the claimant on 2025-02-06. The court vindicated the claimant’s title and possession, restrained further interference with the land, but limited monetary recovery to general damages and costs. The case demonstrates that even in undefended proceedings, a claimant must still prove his case with credible evidence, particularly where title to land and trespass are in issue.
Significance
This decision is important for several reasons. First, it reinforces the evidential value of a Certificate of Occupancy in Nigerian land litigation. Second, it confirms that trespass can be established by proof of possession and unauthorized interference, even where the trespasser is unknown. Third, it illustrates the distinction between general damages, which may be inferred from the wrongful act, and special damages, which require strict proof. Finally, it shows that an undefended suit does not automatically succeed; the court must still evaluate the claimant’s evidence and be satisfied of its credibility.