BEST LAW REPORT SUBSCRIPTION PRICE!!

  • Yahaya v. Ilorin West Local Government
  • 874
  • 2017-02-27
  • ₦ 200
  • Buy Now

Yahaya v. Ilorin West Local Government

BAMIDELE YAHAYA
(For and on behalf of Alfa Yahaya Aladi family)
V
ILORIN WEST LOCAL GOVERNMENT
COURT OF APPEAL
(ILORIN DIVISION)

HUSSEIN MUKHTAR JCA (Presided and Read the Lead
Judgment)
CHIDI NWAOMA UWA JCA
UCHECHUKWU ONYEMENAM JCA

CA/IL/17/2014
THURSDAY, 30 JUNE 2016

APPEAL -Omnibus ground of appeal challenging judgment of trial court on grounds of being against weight of evidence - Determination of - Proper approach of appellate court to
EVIDENCE - Standard of proof in civil cases - Need to prove on preponderance of evidence based on probability
LAND LAW - Possession/title - Competing claimants for - Proper party to ascribe to
LAND LAW - Title to disputed land - Competing claims for -vTrial court - Whether proper to dismiss without ascribing title to either party thereto

 

Issues:
 

1. Whether the trial court was right in dismissing the appellant/cross-respondent’s action for trespass to the land in dispute
2. Whether the learned trial judge was right in dismissing the cross-appellant’s action for permanent injunction, for his failure to establish his entitlement to the disputed land.

 

Facts:
 

The appellant was the plaintiff in the High Court of Kwara State where he commenced an action in a representative capacity for himself and on behalf of his family, claiming possession of the land situate at Baba Ode village, off Asa-dam road, Ilorin, Kwara State, and that his family had been exercising acts of ownership thereon. He prayed for a permanent injunction restraining the respondent from trespassing thereon. The respondent however denied appellant’s claims, averring that it acquired the disputed land lawfully from the owning family. It counter-claimed for declaratory reliefs to that effect and order
for immediate possession of the land. The trial court dismissed both the main claim and the counterclaim. Dissatisfied, the appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal contending that the trial court erred by dismissing his action for trespass while the respondent cross-appealed.