- YAKUBU V JAUROYEL
- ₦ 200
YAKUBU V JAUROYEL
ALHAJI ISIYAKU YAKUBU
1. ALHAJI USMAN JAUROYEL
2. MINISTRY OF WORKS TRANSPORT,
LAND AND SURVEY, YOLA
3. DIRECTOR GENERAL DEPARTMENT OF
LAND AND SURVEY, GOVERNOR’S OFFICE,
YOLA, ADAMAWA STATE
SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA
MAHMUD MOHAMMED JSC (Presided)
JOHN AFOLABI FABIYI JSC (Read the Lead Judgment)
MARY UKAEGO PETER-ODILI JSC
MUSA DATTIJO MUHAMMAD JSC
KUDIRAT MOTONMORI OLATOKUNBO KEKERE-EKUN JSC
FRIDAY, 11 APRIL 2014
APPEAL - Findings of fact by two lower courts - Where concurrent - Supreme Court - Attitude of thereto
EVIDENCE - Contradictions in evidence of witnesses - When will result in rejection thereof
EVIDENCE - Fraud in civil cases - Standard of proof of
GOVERNMENT - Certificate of occupancy - Where issued as a result of inadvertence of Government official issuing it - Nature of
LAND LAW - Certificate of occupancy - Where issued as a result of inadvertence of the Government official issuing it - Nature of
LAND LAW - Declaration of title - Plaintiff therein - Need for to succeed on the strength of his own case
LAND LAW - Declaration of title - When will be made without a plan
LAND LAW - Declaration of title to land - Action for - Claimant entitled to only portion for which he proves title
MAXIM - Ubi jus ibi remedium - Meaning of
WORDS AND PHRASES - ‘Contradictory’ - Meaning of
1. Whether there were material conflicts in the evidence adduced by the appellant and his witness to have made the Court of
Appeal to affirm the decision of the trial court.
2. Whether the Court of Appeal was right to have endorsed the finding of the trial court that the certificate of occupancy was
fake, false and fraudulent, when the respondents admitted having issued the certificate to the appellant.
3. Whether the appellant was entitled to the land measuring 6,149 square metres, and if not, whether the Court of Appeal was
not wrong to have denied the appellant the smaller portion of land to which the 2nd respondent admitted as having been allotted to the appellant.
The appellant, upon application to the Gongola State Government (now Adamawa State), was allocated a piece of land measuring 6,149 square meters at the Mubi GRA and issued a Certificate of Occupancy No. GS/ 5705 in respect of” same. When the appellant wanted to fence the plot, he discovered that the beacons used in demarcating the plot had been removed.
His attempt to find out from the Ministry of Lands what happened to the beacons yielded no result as his letters remained unanswered.
When the appellant discovered the 1st respondent had occupied part of the plot allocated to him, he instituted an action in the High Court, and joined the 2nd and 3rd respondents as defendants in the suit. The trial court found that although a 6,149 square meter land had been allocated to the appellant, the Ministry of Lands had also allocated part of the land to the 1st respondent. The court went on to dismiss the appellant’s claim in its entirety, holding that the certificate of occupancy issued the appellant was fake and
Aggrieved, the appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal, which court also dismissed the appeal.
Dissatisfied still, the appellant appealed to the Supreme Court