SANYA V. SAUMAM (2011)

Background

This appeal arose from a land dispute decided by the High Court of Taraba State, Jalingo, in Suit No. TRSJ/16/2004. The respondents, who were the plaintiffs at trial, claimed ownership of a parcel of farmland situated at Kurmai/Kufai village along the old road to Jauro Sobai in Ardo Kola Local Government Area. They sought declaratory and injunctive reliefs, an order for the appellants to vacate the land, and damages for trespass. Their case was founded principally on traditional history. They asserted that their ancestor, Saumam, was the first settler on the land, having cleared and cultivated it, and that Kpanti Jang, the appellants’ grandfather, occupied the land only as a customary tenant.

The appellants also relied on traditional history, maintaining that Kpanti Jang was the original founder and owner of the land. During the trial, the judge visited the locus in quo. After hearing the witnesses and considering the pleadings, the High Court accepted the respondents’ account, declared them owners of the land, held that Kpanti Jang had been a customary tenant, and adjudged the appellants trespassers. The appellants appealed on eight grounds, challenging the identity and boundaries of the land, the evaluation of evidence, the alleged customary tenancy, the use of evidence affected by interpretation difficulties, and the propriety of granting title to a smaller portion of the land than was originally claimed.

Issues

1. Whether the respondents proved the identity, size and boundaries of the land with the certainty required in an action for declaration of title.
2. Whether the trial court properly relied on evidence concerning the alleged customary tenancy of Kpanti Jang.
3. Whether the respondents established title on the strength of their own case through cogent traditional history.
4. Whether the trial court was justified in declaring the appellants trespassers.
5. Whether the complaint concerning interpretation difficulties and alleged denial of fair hearing constituted a competent ground of appeal.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that a claimant seeking a declaration of title must prove the identity of the land, including its area and boundaries, by clear and credible evidence. The burden is ordinarily discharged on the strength of the claimant’s own case and not by relying on weaknesses in the defence. An admission by a defendant cannot, by itself, justify a declaration of title. However, in this case, the respondents proved the boundaries through the combined testimony of their witnesses and relevant admissions made by the appellants’ witnesses. The eastern, western, northern and southern boundaries were sufficiently established, even though different witnesses occasionally used different names for boundary persons or adjoining lands.

The court further held that evidence given by a witness called by one party, where it supports the opposing party’s case, may amount to an admission against interest. A trial court is not entitled to accept only the portions of a party’s evidence that favour that party while rejecting other portions from the same party that assist the opponent.

On title, the court reaffirmed the five recognised methods of proving ownership of land: traditional history; production of title documents; numerous and positive acts of ownership over a sufficient period; long possession; and possession or ownership of adjoining or connected land in circumstances supporting an inference of title. Where traditional history is cogent, conclusive and accepted by the court, it is sufficient on its own to establish title. The respondents’ traditional history was preferred because it was consistent and supported by the evidence, while the appellants’ version contained material contradictions, including conflicting accounts of who first settled on the land.

Court Findings

The appellate court rejected the appellants’ argument that the respondents’ claim failed because no survey plan was tendered. Although a survey plan is often the better method of proving the identity and extent of land, oral evidence may suffice where it describes the land with enough precision to enable a surveyor to identify it. The evidence at trial, including testimony from witnesses called by the appellants, established the relevant boundaries. The court’s visit to the locus in quo was also proper because the land was extensive and the inspection assisted in resolving questions concerning physical features and boundaries. Nevertheless, a locus inspection is part of the trial and cannot dispense with the rules of evidence or procedure.

The court also upheld the trial judge’s decision to exclude the portion said to belong to Alhaji Musa Kantiyel. A court cannot determine the title of a person who has not been joined or given an opportunity to be heard. The trial court therefore acted properly in granting relief over the smaller portion whose title and boundaries were proved. A court may grant less than the relief claimed, but it must not grant more than the claimant seeks. Declaratory relief remains discretionary and may be granted in whole, in part, or refused, provided the relief granted is supported by the evidence.

The complaint concerning the interpreter was struck out as incompetent. Although the constitutional right to fair hearing is fundamental and a genuine breach would nullify the affected proceedings, the alleged interpretation difficulty was not made an issue before the trial court and did not form part of the ratio decidendi of its judgment. A ground of appeal must attack a decision or finding actually made by the lower court, and every issue for determination must flow from a competent ground of appeal. The appellants could not transform an incidental observation made during trial into a fresh appellate issue without obtaining leave.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal in its entirety and affirmed the judgment of the Taraba State High Court. It upheld the respondents’ title to the proved portion of the land, the finding that Kpanti Jang occupied the land as a customary tenant of Saumam, and the declaration that the appellants were trespassers. Costs of N50,000 were awarded to the respondents.

Significance

Sanya v. Saumam is significant in Nigerian land law for its restatement of the evidential burden in claims for declaration of title. It confirms that identity of land must be proved with certainty, but that such proof may arise from consistent oral evidence and supporting testimony from the opposing party. It also illustrates the continuing importance of traditional history as a means of proving title and the rule that, once one competing traditional history is accepted as cogent and the other rejected as contradictory, it is generally unnecessary to resort to acts of possession or ownership. The decision further emphasises appellate restraint: an appellate court does not rehear a case or substitute its assessment of witnesses for that of the trial court unless the findings are unreasonable, perverse or unsupported by the evidence.