19 May 2008
Lagos — 'It has now become firmly established that there are five ways of establishing title to land and they are: - by traditional evidence by document of title, by various acts of ownership and possession numerous and positive to warrant inference of ownership, by acts of long possession and enjoyment of the land; and by proof of possession of adjacent land to the land in dispute in such circumstances which render it probable that the owner of the adjacent land is the owner of the land in dispute.' So held the Supreme Court in this case.
The appeal was against the decision of the Court of Appeal sitting in Abuja delivered on the 12th of April, 2002 allowing the respondent's appeal and setting aside the judgment of the trial court delivered on the 24Th March 2000 and in its place, entering an order dismissing the plaintiff/appellant's claim.
The plaintiff as the appellant and the defendant as the respondent got married sometime in, 1976 and cohabited as husband and wife. They had four children. They ceased to live together as husband and wife from November 1993.
The appellant claimed she applied for a plot of land in May 1990, from the Ministry of Federal Capital Territory, Land Administration Department and the Honourable Minister acknowledged the receipt of the applications form for allocation of land duly completed by the appellant.
The written response of the Minister dated July 15, 1990 was addressed to the appellant. According to the appellant, the respondent, her husband then, and who was a staff of the Federal Capital Development Authority, was entrusted by her with the processing of the application and follow up towards obtaining the Certificate of Occupancy. She claimed she made available to her husband, the respondent, all the money needed to facilitate the allocation of the plot of land to her.
The respondent however contended that he paid all the expenses on the land. He also claimed that he informed the appellant that he would apply for the land using the appellant's name and that the appellant never raised any objection to the idea. It was at this stage that cohabitation between the husband and wife ceased. The respondent at this point in time went and collected the original Certificate of Occupancy. When the appellant realised that the respondent had collected the Certificate of Occupancy without her knowledge and consent, she demanded for the release of same to her. But the respondent refused to hand it over to her. When all entreaties for the release having failed, the appellant sought redress from the court of law.
Pleadings were filed and exchanged between the parties. The case then proceeded to hearing at the end of which, in a reserved judgment, delivered on March 24 2000, the trial judge found in favour of the plaintiff/appellant.
Dissatisfied with the judgment of the trial court, the defendant appealed to the Court of Appeal, which after listening to the addresses of their respective counsel, in a reserved judgment delivered on April 12 2002, allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of the trial court and in its place, entered an order dismissing the plaintiff/appellant's claim.
Being dissatisfied with the said judgment, the appellant appealed to the Supreme Court
In her brief of argument two issues were raised for determination. The first was whether the Court of Appeal was right to hold that the appellant failed to prove ownership of Plot No. 327 covered by Certificate of Occupancy No. FCT/ABU/AN/2685.
The other was whether in the circumstances of the case the respondent fully made out a case for resulting trust.
The respondent also identified two similar issues for determination.
In arguing Issue No. l on the appellant's brief of argument, it was submitted that the case of the appellant before the trial court was hinged on documents of title which she got from the Hon. Minister of the Federal Capital Territory when her application for allocation of land within the Federal Capital Territory was successful. She claimed she tendered in evidence all the documents she received. Those documents of title, she further submitted, constitute, one of the five ways by which ownership of land may be established citing in support, the decision of the Supreme Court in IDUNDUN v OKUMAGBA (1976) 9-10 S.C. 227.
The documents she got were all made out in her name and which she tendered in evidence during the hearing. She further claimed that she paid all the monies required for the land by MFCT and that all documents including the receipts issued acknowledging the payment of money she paid were in her name. The Certificate of Occupancy on the land which the respondent collected without her authorisation was also in her name.
On Issue No.2, which is centered on RESULTING TRUST, the appellant submitted that there was a resulting trust in favour of the person providing the money unless from the relationship between the two or from other circumstances, it appeared that a gift was intended. It was further submitted that there was no iota of evidence that the respondent was the actual owner of the land and it was finally submitted that there can be no RESULTING TRUST from a husband to his wife.
It was held that the plaintiff/appellant had not adduced sufficient evidence in proof of the claim and it was accordingly dismissed.
Consequentially, the decision of the trial court was thereby set aside and in its place an order dismissing the plaintiff/appellant's claim was made
It was held particularly that 'The court will imply or presume in a situation where a purchase of property is made in the name of another that that other holds the property for the benefit of the person who advanced money for the purchase of the property. The law, in such a situation, presumes that the intention was that the property should be held on trust by the third party transferee.'
It was further held that 'where the purchase money was provided partly by the person to whom the property is transferred and partly by another or others. In such cases, the transferee holds the property in trust for all the persons who contributed to paying for it with each having beneficial interest proportionate to the amount of purchase money he advanced.'
It was further held thus, 'I wish to say that from the totality of the evidence placed before the trial judge, it is very clear that the plaintiff/appellant personally applied for and paid for Plot No.327 covered by Certificate of Occupancy No. l.CT/ABU/AN.2685 and same was consequentially validly allocated to her by the appropriate authority. To the extent to which the defendant/respondent is meddling with the said property, he is a trespasser. The interest of justice demands that the judgment of the trial court be here restored.'
It was thereby declared that the plaintiff/appellant was the owner/allottee of the plot covered by Certificate of Occupancy No. I;CT/ABU/AN.2685.
It was declared that the plaintiff/appellant was entitled to immediate possession of the said Certificate of Occupancy which the defendant/respondent must surrender to her within seven days of the delivery of the judgment. Also an order of injunction restraining the defendant/ respondent from further trespassing on the said plot of land was made. Finally, N100,000 damages in favour of the plaintiff/appellant for trespass committed by the defendant/respondent
Costs were assessed and awarded in favour of the appellant at N10,000.00.
Mrs. A. Adesina, for the appellant
Mr. O. Umoh, for the respondent
Be the first to Write a Comment!
Copyright © 2008 This Day. All rights reserved. Distributed by AllAfrica Global Media (allAfrica.com). To contact the copyright holder directly for corrections — or for permission to republish or make other authorized use of this material, click here.
AllAfrica aggregates and indexes content from over 125 African news organizations, plus more than 200 other sources, who are responsible for their own reporting and views. Articles and commentaries that identify allAfrica.com as the publisher are produced or commissioned by AllAfrica.
