WHETHER DISMISSAL OF CLAIM OF A PLAINTIFF AUTOMATICALLY CONFIRMS A DEFENDANT’S TITLE TO A CERTAIN PROPERTY

In land disputes in Nigeria, parties often assume that once the court dismisses the plaintiff’s claim, the defendant’s title is automatically validated. This assumption is flawed. The dismissal of a plaintiff’s claim is not synonymous with a judicial declaration in favour of the defendant’s title. Under the Nigerian legal system, title to land is proven positively, not by the weakness of the opposing party’s case.

For more insight to an adventure on the above topic, recourse shall be made to the Supreme Court case of IBUDE v. SAIDI & Anor. (2021) 10 NWLR (pt. 1785) 567. A brief overview of the fact of the case goes thus:

The dispute arose over a parcel of land situated in Benin City, Edo State. The appellant, Alake Osarobo Ibude, claimed ownership of the land through inheritance from his late father, who had allegedly received the land from the Oba of Benin under Benin customary law. According to the appellant, following the death of his father, he became the lawful owner and remained in possession of the property. The respondents, Ghassan Saidi and Saidi Hotel Limited, later entered the land after obtaining a Temporary Occupation Licence from the Edo State Government. The appellant contended that the respondents had no legal title to the land and that their entry constituted trespass. Consequently, he instituted an action seeking a declaration of title, damages for trespass, and a perpetual injunction restraining the respondents from further interference with the property.

At the trial court, judgment was entered in favour of the appellant. The court held that he had successfully established ownership of the land through traditional evidence and inheritance. The respondents were found liable for trespass, and the reliefs sought by the appellant were granted. Dissatisfied with the decision, the respondents appealed to the Court of Appeal, which reversed the judgment of the trial court. The Court of Appeal held that the appellant had failed to satisfactorily prove his title to the land and consequently dismissed his claims.

The appellant further appealed to the Supreme Court. The apex court considered whether the appellant had successfully proved his title to the land, whether the respondents possessed any valid legal interest in the property, and whether the Court of Appeal was right in disturbing the findings of the trial court.

In its wise judgment, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and restored the decision of the trial court. 

The Court held that the appellant had successfully established a valid root of title by tracing ownership of the land to his late father and ultimately to the Oba of Benin. The Court emphasized that traditional evidence remains a recognized method of proving title to land where such evidence is cogent, credible, and unchallenged. The Court found that the appellant's evidence of inheritance and ownership was sufficient and had not been effectively rebutted by the respondents.

The Supreme Court further held that the Temporary Occupation Licence (TOL) relied upon by the respondents did not confer ownership of the land. A TOL merely grants a temporary right of occupation and does not amount to a title document capable of transferring ownership. Consequently, the respondents could not rely on the licence to defeat the appellant's established title. The Court also held that since the appellant had proved a better title to the land, the respondents' entry and occupation amounted to trespass, thereby entitling the appellant to damages and injunctive relief.

One of the most important principles established in the case is that title to land may be proved through any of the recognized methods, such as: traditional evidence, production of title documents, acts of ownership extending over a sufficient period, acts of long possession and enjoyment, and possession of connected or adjacent land. The Supreme Court reiterated that where a claimant successfully establishes any of these methods, a declaration of title may be granted.

The Apex Court also reaffirmed the principle that a defendant who acknowledges the claimant's ownership bears the burden of proving how that ownership was subsequently divested. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that the failure of a plaintiff to prove title does not automatically vest ownership in the defendant unless the defendant independently establishes a valid title or files a successful counterclaim. To this effect, the Court held that:

“In an action for declaration of title to land, even if the plaintiff fails, title does not automatically confer on the defendant without a counter-claim. In this case, the respondents knew that the case against them was for declaration of title to the land in dispute, yet did not counter-claim. Probably, they had no claim to ownership or title to necessitate counter-claiming. The respondents defended the suit casually and feebly without the intention of laying claim to the title of the land in dispute.”

From the foregoing, it is clear that the dismissal of a plaintiff’s claim does not automatically confirm a defendant’s title to a property. What it confirms is that the plaintiff failed to prove his case.

For a defendant to have his title judicially recognized, he must either file a counter-claim for declaration of title and prove it, or rely on his title when sued by another party and discharge the burden of proof. Until then, the dismissal merely restores the status quo ante and bars the particular plaintiff from re-litigating the same claim. Title to land is not won by default. It is earned by proof.

About the Author: Abdulmuiz Olasunkanmi Olaleru is a member of the Research and Litigation Directorate, Solace Chambers, Bayero University, Kano. He can be reached via 09153869857.