Background
On 29 January 2016, Smart Oboh and Christopher Oboh (the Claimants), through their Attorney Mr. Michael Oboh, commenced Suit No. HCU/4/2016 against Mr. Monday Ehidiamhen and Mr. David Ehidiamhen (the Defendants) in the High Court of Justice of Edo State, Uromi Judicial Division. The Claimants sought:
- A declaration that they are entitled to statutory rights of occupancy over two parcels of land each measuring 100ft by 100ft at Idumu-Ihanza, Amedokhian Uromi;
- General damages of ₦500,000 for trespass;
- A perpetual injunction restraining further interference.
The Defendants entered appearance, filed a joint statement of defence but thereafter failed to attend trial. The Claimants led evidence through three witnesses: their Attorney (CW1), the conveyancing lawyer B.E. Emiowe Esq. (CW2), and the vendor Mr. Abraham E. Momoh (CW3).
Issues
The sole issue for determination was formulated by learned counsel for the Claimants as:
"Whether the Claimants have led credible evidence in proof of their claim entitling them to judgment?"
Ratio Decidendi
- The Court reaffirmed that unchallenged and uncontroverted evidence is credible and may ground judgment (see Monkom v. Odili (2010) 2 NWLR 419).
- Ownership of land can be proved by traditional history, documents of title, acts of ownership, possession of adjacent land, and long enjoyment (Idundun v. Okumagba (1976) 9-10 SC 227).
- In the absence of defence evidence, the Claimants’ burden is lighter, requiring only minimal proof (Adeleke v. Iyanda (2001) 13 NWLR 1).
- General damages are presumed from trespass and may be assessed as nominal if no specific loss is proved (Artra Industries v. NBCI (1998) 4 NWLR 357).
Court Findings
- Traditional History and Documents: Evidence showed that the land descended under Esan native law from Pa. Owobu to Pa. Ehidiamhen Owobu, who sold to Mr. Momoh (Exhibit D, 10 April 2012). Momoh then sold two 100ft × 100ft parcels to the Claimants by Deeds dated 15 and 20 May 2013 (Exhibits B and C). These deeds were properly prepared by CW2 and remained unchallenged.
- Acts of Ownership and Possession: CW1 and CW3 testified that the Claimants and their vendor had exclusive possession until August 2015, when the 1st Defendant trespassed. No challenge arose during the vendor’s lifetime.
- Unchallenged Evidence: The Defendants did not cross-examine CW2 or CW3, file witness statements or attend trial. The written deposition of the 1st Defendant was never adopted.
- Trespass and Damages: Uncontested evidence of trespass and threats to the Claimants’ Attorney justified an award of damages. However, no specific losses were shown, warranting only nominal damages.
Conclusion
The Court resolved the sole issue in favour of the Claimants, holding that they established title by credible, unchallenged evidence and documents. Judgment was entered as follows:
- Declaration that the Claimants are entitled to statutory rights of occupancy over the two 100ft × 100ft parcels at Idumu-Ihanza, Amedokhian Uromi.
- ₦300,000 general damages (reduced from ₦500,000) for trespass.
- Perpetual injunction restraining the Defendants, their agents and privies from further interference.
- Costs of ₦20,000 in favour of the Claimants.
Significance
This decision underscores the principle that unchallenged evidence, when credible, suffices to prove land title. It clarifies the evidential paths to ownership, emphasizing traditional history, deeds, and acts of possession. The judgment also illustrates the Court’s discretion in awarding nominal damages where specific loss is unproven and reaffirms the ancillary grant of injunction following trespass.