CASE OF THE DAY: PROOFS OF OWNERSHIP OF LAND

• nts
• Laws of Federation
• Rules of Court
• State Rules of Court
• Forms and Precedents
• Articles and Journals
• Law Dictionary
• Legal Maxims
• Foreign Resources
• Notes
• Teams
• Chats
•  Upgrade

MRS. AGNES PETER V. JOHN SALIHU

In the Court of Appeal

Holden At Yola

Wed Dec 7, 2022

Suit Number: CA/YL/115/2020

FULL JUDGEMENT

1. (DELIVERED BY ISAIAH OLUFEMI AKEJU, JCA)
3. This is an Appeal against the Judgment of the High Court of Adamawa State delivered by Hon. Justice A. A. Waziri J. (as he then was) on 27/08/2020 in Suit Number ADSY/49/2018.
4. The Respondent as plaintiff by way of Writ of Summons filed on 11/4/2018 commenced an action against the Appellants as defendants before the trial Court for a declaration of title as follows:
5. i.A declaration that the Plaintiff is the owner of that plot situated and lying at Anguwan Lainde near the federal housing estate Bajabure, Girei Local Government measuring 100 x 100 feet sharing boundary as follows:-
6. a.On the Northern side, it is sharing boundary with the plot of Dauda Zamani
7. b.On the Eastern side, it is sharing a boundary with a bakery 
8. c.On the Western side, it is sharing a boundary with a small Road
9. d.On the Southern side, it is sharing a boundary with the plot of Rev. Yusuf Feakoh.
10. ii.A sum of N36,000.00 (Thirty Six Thousand Naira Only) being the cost of blocks destroyed by the defendants 
11. iii.Perpetual injunction restraining defendants and all those claiming through them for further interference with the plot of plaintiff.
12. iv.An order directing defendants within 7 days to remove the structure they built or planted on the plot of the plaintiff.
13. v.A general damages of N2,000,000.00 (Two Million Naira Only)
14. vi.Cost of this suit.
15. The Appellants denied the claim of the Respondent. The Respondent in prove of his claim called three (3) witnesses and tendered Exhibit “A” while the Appellants also called three (3) Witnesses and tendered Exhibits B, C, D – D13. See, pages 95 – 100 of the Record of Appeal. At the close of the trial, the trial court declared title in favour of the Respondent.
16. The Appellants were dissatisfied with the decision of the trial Court and appealed to this court.
17. From the two (2) grounds in the Notice of Appeal, the Appellants distilled the sole issue for the consideration and determination of the appeal:
18. “Whether the trial Court was right when it erroneously evaluated evidence and declared title to the Respondent and granted all the reliefs sought”
19. The Respondent on his part also distilled a sole issue for the consideration and determination of the appeal as follows:
20. “Whether the trial Court Properly Evaluated the Evidence on records before the court entered Judgment in favour of the Plaintiff, now Respondent. (Distilled from Grounds one and two).
21. In arguing the Appeal, the Learned Counsel for the Appellants O. B. Faison, Esq. adopted and relied on his brief of argument filed on 12/10/2020 and his reply brief filed on 14/1/2022 in urging us to allow the Appeal and set aside the decision of the trial Court. In arguing his sole issue it was submitted that the Respondent at the Trial Court sought a declaration of title to the plot of land lying and situate at Bajabure Federal Housing Estate, in prove of his title, the Respondent only presented evidence of payment for a plot of land dated 3/11/07 Exhibit “A”. The court was referred to page 72 of the Record of Appeal. Further, it was submitted that he who asserts must prove. Reliance was placed on the case of MAGGIE V. SILAS OWERRE (2011) LPELR-4454 (C.A); SECTION 137, EVIDENCE ACT (AMENDED 2011).
22. The Learned counsel submitted further that a claimant in a declaration of title to land must succeed on the strength of his own case. The court was referred to the case of EYA V. OLOPADE (2011) ALL FWLR PT. 84 PG 31 RATION 7. S. C; DUMEZ NIGERIA LTD V. NWAKHOBA (2009) ALL FWLR (PT. 461) PG 842 at 845-846 RATIO 5. Further, it was submitted that for a party to discharge another who is in possession in an action for declaration of title, the party has a greater burden of proving that such party in possession is not the owner. Reliance was placed on the case of MAGGIE V. SILAS OWERRE (2011) LPELR-4454 C.A. The learned counsel added that the admission of a purported sale agreement Exhibit “A” is not enough evidence worthy for the trial Court to heavily rely on in granting title to the Respondent; that the law is clear that such an agreement must proffer adequate and convincing specifications of the land. The court was referred to the case of USMAN DANTATA V. MOUKAR & ANOR (2011) LPELR-9117 (C.A) 
23. It was submitted that the purported sale agreement relied on by the trial Court was in respect of land measuring 100ft x 100ft while in page 8 of the Respondent’s statement of claim, he sought the declaratory relief on a land measuring 200ft x 100ft which is devoid of adequate description, the failure of the District Head of Girei and the Village Head of Damare to sign and failure of all the witnesses to the purported transaction to testify before the Trial Court only raises questions or doubt on the authenticity of the said document; ADEKANMBI V. JANGBON (2007) ALL FWLR (PT. 383) PG. 160. It was submitted further that a party who chooses to rely on facts has the onus of convincing the court evidentially on the existence of such facts. BOTSON V. PLATEAU STATE EXPRESS SERVICES (2018); LPELR-45391. 
24. The learned counsel to the Appellant argued that the Respondent at the trial court claimed the land in dispute with descriptions in his statement of claim but none of these boundary men/vital witnesses was called upon at trial to testify to substantiate the Respondent’s claim at the trial court. Further, it was submitted that the Respondent stated that he sold part of the disputed land to one Yusuf Feakoh who now is his neighbour at the southern part of the land in dispute, as well as Dauda Zamani. The court was referred to page 9 of the record of Appeal. 
25. The learned counsel submitted that the Respondent called three (3) different witnesses and tendered Exhibit “A” and that the Six persons that executed Exhibit A were not called to testify in support of the Respondent’s claim yet the trial court relied on the said Exhibit A in granting the Respondent’s claim, it was also submitted that there is no evidence to show that exhibit A was transacted in 1997 between PW1 and Jauro Yahya. There is no evidence tendered before the trial court evidencing receipt of compensatory sums by the PW1 from the Government over the land or around the area where the land in dispute is situated.
26. It was the contention of the learned counsel to the Appellants that the evidence of the Respondent was full of contradiction and the court cannot be made to choose which to pick and to rely on; OWOR V. CHRISTOPHER (2010) ALL FWLR PT. 511 PG. 960 at 98 RATIO 13. Further, It was submitted that Jauro Yahya owns no land within or around the land in dispute to sell out which testimony remained uncontroverted which the trial court failed to consider to ascertain its genuiness before relying on same as required by law. ROMAINE V. ROMAINE (1992) 4 NWLR (PT 238) 650 at 662; AGBOOLA V. U.B.A. (2011) ALL FWLR (PT. 574) PG. 79, 78 RATIO 9, AREMU V. CHUKWU (2011) ALL FWLR (PT. 598) at 883 RATIO 6. It was further argued that Exhibit “A” does not satisfy the requirements in the above cited authorities and that the learned trial Judge was in massive error when he relied on an authority which deals with common grantor while the parties are claiming title from different grantors.
27. It was submitted that the Appellant at the trial court open and established their defence by calling three (3) witnesses whereby Exhibit C a layout of the disputed land and Exhibit D1-D12 being the report of the payment of compensation prepared by the Ministry of Land and Survey, Adamawa State were tendered without objection yet credence was not accorded the documents. All issues raised at the Court must be addressed and not some. AZUDA V. EBIGAH (2009) ALL FWLR (PT. 493) PG. 12224 at 1233 RATIO 5; F.M.H V. COMET SHIPPING AGENCIES (2009) ALL FWLR (PT. 483) PG. 1260 at 1264 RATIO 7. It was also submitted that this court is not only enjoined but mandated to consider all issues raised before it especially issues raised and were not considered at the trial court. The court was urged to allow the appeal and set aside the decision of the trial court.
28. On the part of the Respondent, the learned counsel Aji. Kamale, Esq. relied on his brief of argument filed on 30/1/2021 but deemed properly filed and served on 1/2/2022 in urging us to dismiss the appeal and affirm the decision of the trial Court. 
29. It was submitted that he who asserts must prove and the burden rests on the party against whom judgment would be given if no evidence were produced in respect of those facts. Reliance was placed on Section 134 Evidence Act, 2011. Further, the five ways of proving title to land before the court would grant the declaration of title in favour of a party were outlined; MOGAJI V. CADBURY (NIG) LTD (1985) 2 NWLR (PT. 7) 397. The learned counsel submitted that the burden is placed on the Plaintiff to prove at least, one of the five ways and not conjunctively. AJIBULU V. AJAYI (2014) 2 NWLR (PT. 1392) 486 @ 487 RATIO 5. the Respondent on the 13/11/2019 in an effort to prove his case called 3 witnesses who adopted their respective statements on oath and testified under cross examination that Exhibit ‘A’ was issued by one Chiroma Mairiga. It was submitted that PW1 bought the land from Jauro Mairiga and he sold the land to the Respondent, the trial court has properly evaluated the evidence. 
30. The Learned Counsel submitted that the Respondent as PW2 adopted his Statement on Oath and testified under cross examination that Isa Mamman is not Chiroma Mairiga, that Isa Maman issued receipt to him and that Adamawa State Government did not acquired the land. The court was referred to pages 116-117 Record of Appeal and urged court to uphold the findings of the trial court. 
31. It was submitted that all the witnesses testified and there was unbroken chain and from the available records in Exhibits A and D-D13 the Common Grantor of the land is the traditional owner Chiroma Mairiga. It was submitted that the Respondent’s statement on oath shows that he acquired title sometime in the year 2007 from one Isa Mamman and Isa Mamman acquired his title from Chiroma Mairiga while the Appellants claimed to have also acquired title through the traditional owners in the year 2008 after the compensation was paid in the presence of Chiroma Mairiga Mohammed which evidence the trial court has properly evaluated at page 117 of the Record of Appeal.
32. It was submitted that on 18/12/2019, the Appellants called DWI Mr. Caleb Waziri, who adopted his statement on oath and was cross examined, he testified that he is Wakili of Mai Anguwa and will be surprised to say that the village head sold the land. On the 17/1/2020 the Appellants called DW2 one Ahmed Suleiman Gaya. The witness after adopting his statement on oath tendered Exhibit ‘B’, that the original title holder who sold his land to one Wakili Musa was never called to inform the court who transferred his title to the Appellants. The court was referred to Pages 100-101 of the Record of Appeal. 
33. It was submitted that there must be continuous unbroken chain in land matter and it was submitted that the Appellants did not testify in person neither did they call the original holders to testify nor that a witness cannot sell what does not belong to him.
34. It was further submitted by the Respondent’s counsel that on the 04/02/2020 the Appellants also called DWIII, One Usman Umar a land officer from the Ministry of Land and Survey Yola, Adamawa State who testified and tendered two documents which were admitted as Exhibits C and D1-D13 and no witness was called to link the Exhibits to the evidence on records. 
35. It was contended that the Appellants applied for Subpoena Duces Tecum/Ad Testficandum on the 22/1/2020 where a Map Layout of ADSGP 17 Plot No: 20 Near Housing Estate Bajabure and Evidence of Compensation report covered in Exhibits D1-D13 which does not cover the land subject of dispute.
36. It was contended further that Exhibit D1 is ADSYP16 not ADSGP17 pleaded which can be seen on the heading of the same Exhibit and that the compensation is in favour of ADSYP16 not ADSYP17. The court was referred to page 87 of the Record of Appeal, it was submitted further that the same Chiroma Mairiga who sold to Isa Mamman through whom Respondent is claiming was the person who signed being the Village Head. 
37. It was submitted that if this court should expunge Exhibits C and D - D13, then there will be nothing before the court to relate same to the claim of the Appellants. Further that the Respondent has proved his claim and that the trial court was right to have entered judgment in his favour. The court was urged to dismiss this appeal and affirm the decision of the trial court.
38. The Respondent on the 30/6/2021 filed a Motion on Notice pursuant to Order 6 Rule 1 and Order 7 Rule 6 of the Court of Appeal Rules and prayed for the following:
39. 1.An order of this Hon. Court striking out Ground One of the grounds of appeal No. CA/YL/115/2020 for being incompetent in law.
40. 2.AND FOR SUCH FURTHER ORDER or orders as this Court may deem fit to make in the circumstance.
41. 3.Cost of this suit.
42. The grounds upon which the motion was predicated were outlined therein with an affidavit of five (5) paragraphs deposed to by Erchem Magdiel with an Annexure marked as Exhibit “A”. In arguing the motion Counsel relied on the depositions and urged the court to strike out ground 1, because ground one in the Notice of Appeal cannot stand without seeking the leave of this court which is basically challenging the findings of fact, evaluation of facts and calling for investigation of the existence or otherwise of facts as such they are grounds of mixed law and fact. UGWU V. THE STATE (2013) VOL. 222 LRCN (PT. 1) 36 at 53, PARAS. A-F. 
43. It was submitted by the Respondent’s counsel that the law is fairly settled that where an appeal is to be with leave but none was obtained, the condition precedent for the validity of such an appeal has not been fulfilled and in law it is incompetent and the appellate court is in consequence without jurisdiction to entertain same. MR. CYRIL FASUYI & 3 ORS. V. PEOPLES DEMOCRATIC PARTY (PDP) & 2 Ors. (2017) JSCNLR (Vol. 15), 271 at 308, Para. B-C, SC. Further, if ground one of the Notice of Appeal is struck out, it is now left for this court to see if there is merit in the ground to hear the appeal. This court was urged to strike out ground one of the Notice of Appeal and see if the remaining ground can stand.
44. In response the Appellants’ counsel filed a reply brief containing his reply on point of law which is basically responding to the issue raised by the Respondent to strike out ground one but no issue on point of law was responded to with regards to the submission in the Respondent’s brief. It was submitted that the respondent issue for determination only covers ground two and not grounds one and two and the court was urge to deem ground one abandoned by the Respondent. ABDULLAHI V. THE NIGERIAN ARMY (2009) ALL FWLR (PT. 500) PG. 643 at 651 RATIO 13; TRIANA LTD. V. UNIVERSAL TRUST BANK PLC. (2009) ALL FWLR (PT. 486) PG. 1924 at 126 RATIO 2 and CHUWMA V. IFELOYE (2009) ALL FWLR (PT. 460) PG. 629 at 630.
45. It was submitted that ground one of the Appellants’ grounds in the Notice of Appeal is not incompetent as claimed by the Respondent because the ground one and the particulars read together reveals whether the error is of law or fact, it is always relevant to construe the ground of appeal together with the particulars of error which reveals that the leave of court is not required to appeal. ADEGBUYI V. MUSTAPHA (2010) ALL FWLR PT. 532. Lastly, it was submitted that ground one of the notice of Appeal is competent and does not require leave before it is granted and same is not of facts neither is it of mixed law and fact it is, concise and precise enough and gives adequate information to the Respondent on what the Appellants’ complaint is all about; HANI AKAR ENT. LTD. V. INDO (NG) MECHANT BANK (2011) ALL FWLR (PT. 567) PG. 726 at 728 RATIO 2.
46. I shall consider firstly, whether or not the ground one of the Notice of Appeal is competent or not because it is trite that once an application or objection is raised to the competency of a ground the same must be addressed first and if it does not succeeds then the court is enjoined to proceed to determine other issues but where it put an end to the appeal there would be no need for the court to embark on a fruitless journey. See, FBN PLC V. T.S.A. INDUSTRIES LTD. (2010) LPELR – 1283 (SC) P. 13, PARAS. B-E, DUROWAIYE V. UBN (PLC.) (2014) LPELR – 24309 (CA) PP. 13 – 14, PARAS. E-A.
48. I now reproduce the ground one of the Appellants’ notice of Appeal as follows:
49. GROUND ONE (1)
50. The Honorable trial court erred in law and consequently occasioned miscarriage of justice when he held that the Plaintiff has proved his case when in fact and in law the Plaintiff did not proof his title to the land in dispute as required by law.
52. PARTICULARS OF ERROR
53. i.The claim of the plaintiff is for declaration of title.
56. ii.The burden of proof rest on the Plaintiff to prove his case beyond reasonable doubt.
59. iii.The Plaintiff must succeed on the strength of his own case and not in the weakness of the defendant’s case.
62. iv.Material contradictions abound in the claims of the Plaintiff and evidence adduced”.
64. The provision of Section 241 (1) (a) Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as Amended) states thus:
65. “An appeal shall lie from decision of the federal high Court or a high Court to the court of Appeal as of Right in the following:
66. A) Final decision in any civil or criminal proceedings before the Federal High Court or a High court sitting at first instances”.
67. The Appellants’ reply brief had nothing to say about the response and submission of the Respondent’s brief but rather a reply on point of law to the application of the Respondent for striking out ground one. 
68. I have carefully examined the application and the respective submissions of the counsel to the parties and going by the Constitutional provision quoted herein above the Appellants being dissatisfied with the decision of the Trial Court can appeal against same to the appellate court as of right, it is therefore on this note I am of the humble but, firm view that the ground one of the Appellants’ Notice of Appeal is competent, same is allowed and this court shall consider and determine the issue distilled there from. The Application filed on the 30/6/2021 is accordingly dismissed.
69. On the main appeal, the court shall consider and determine this appeal on the sole issue as formulated by the Appellants thus:
70. “Whether the trial Court was right when it erroneously evaluated evidence and declared title to the Respondent and granted all the reliefs sought”
71. Though the Appellants did not state in their brief of argument how the issue was distilled from the two grounds however the court shall proceed to consider same as formulated.
72.  In a civil case, the court decides the case on the balance of probabilities or preponderance of evidence. This is done when a trial court puts on an imaginary scale the totality of the credible evidence adduced by the parties before it, before coming to a decision as to which evidence it believes. The court must put the evidence adduced by the plaintiff on one side of the scale and that of the Defendant on the other side of the scale and weigh them together. The court will then see which is heavier, not by number of witnesses called by each party, but by the quality or probative value of the testimony of those witnesses. See, FAGBENRO V. AROBADI (2006) 7 NWLR (PT. 978) 178 SC. 
73. It is trite that the onus of proof in a declaration of title lies on the plaintiff who succeeds on the strength of his case and not on the weakness of the defendant’s case. See, KODILINYE V. ODU (Supra), UDEGBE V. NWOKAFOR (1963) 1 SCNLR 184, WOLUCHEM V. GUDI (1981) SC 291, PIARO V. TENALO (1976) 12 SC 31. In the present case, the Respondent who was the Plaintiff at the trial Court had the burden to prove that he is entitled to the declaration of title. It is trite that there are five ways in which title could be established as laid down in the case of IDUNDUN vs. OKUMAGBA (1976) 9 – 10 SC 223. These are as follows:
74. (1)By traditional history or evidence.
75. (2)By production of documents of title.
76. (3)By proving acts of ownership (such as selling, leasing, renting out or farming on all or part of the land) extending over a sufficient length of time, or which are numerous and positive enough as to warrant the inference that the person is the true owner.
77. (4)By proving acts of long possession and enjoyment of the land.
78. (5)By proof of possession of connected or adjacent land in circumstances rendering it probable that the claimant is also owner of the land in dispute.
79. Proof of one of the ways is sufficient. See, also ARIJE V. ARIJE & ORS (2018) LPELR – 44193 (SC) P.34, PARAS. B-G, NKADO V. OBIANO (1997) 5 SC NJ 33 at 47; OWHONDA V. EPECHI (2003) 9 – 11 SCN 1 at 6 and ILIYA & ANOR V. LAMU & ANOR (2019) LPELR – 47048 (CA) PP. 19 – 20, PARAS. D – B.
80. In the evaluation of evidence, the trial courts are guided by the following principles, namely: (a) whether the evidence is admissible; (b) whether the evidence is relevant: (c) whether the evidence is credible; (d) whether the evidence is conclusive; (e) whether the evidence is more probable than that given by the other party. See, MOGAJI V. ODOFIN (1978) 4 SC 91 
81. The Respondent on the 13/11/2019 presented and/or called 3 witnesses in proof of his claim before the trial court. The PW1 is Isa Mamman who adopted his statement on oath and testified under cross examination that the receipt Exhibit ‘A’ was issued by one Chiroma Mairiga. That he (PW1) bought the land from Jauro Mairiga and he sold the land to the Respondent. The Respondent as PW2 testified under cross examination that PW2 is not Chiroma Mairiga, that Isa Maman issued receipt to him. See, pages 96 and 97 of the record of Appeal. 
82. The witness testified that Adamawa State Government did not acquire the land in dispute and going by the Report on payment of Compensation none of the parties’ grantors of interest was compensated for the disputed land. See, pages 116-117, 75 88 of the record of appeal. The PW3 informed court that the plaintiff bought the land from Isa Mamman and Isa Mamman from Jauro Yahya. It is also clear that in Exhibits A and D-D13 the Common Grantor of the land is the Traditional Owner Chiroma Mairiga who signed the two documents. See, pages 19 and 87 of the Records of Appeal. 
83. The Respondent in paragraphs 4 and 5 of his statement on oath stated how he acquired title sometime in the year 2007 from one Isa Mamman and said Isa Mamman acquired his title from Chiroma Mairiga. See, page 8 of the Records of Appeal, while the Appellants are claiming to have also acquired title through the traditional owners in the year 2008 after the compensation was paid in the presence of Chiroma Mairiga Mohammed. See, page 87 of the Record of Appeal.
84. At page 40 of the Record of Appeal are list of four (4) documents the Appellants relied on at the trial court which are as follows:
85. 1.Sales agreement dated 1/10/2008 between Ahmed Sulei Gaya and Alh. Wakili Musa with consideration but without measurement.
86. 2.Sales agreement dated 8/6/2011 between Adamu M. Bala and Oliver B. Faison measuring 100ft x 75ft.
87. 3.Sales agreement dated 17/4/2012 between Oliver B. Faison and Mr. Peter Vandu measuring 108ft /70ft/100ft.
88. 4.Exhibits D – D13
89. From the above sales agreements, none of these documents shows that the Appellants’ acquired the land in dispute, the names, the description of the property are different from the Appellants. The Appellants called DWI Mr. Caleb Waziri, who adopted his statement on oath and was then cross examined. The witness state in evidence in chief in paragraphs 1 and 2 at page 38 of the records of Appeal under cross examination, at pages 98-99 of the record of Appeal the witness testified that he is Wakili of Mai Anguwa who would be surprised to hear that the village head sold the land in dispute. On the 17/1/2020 the Appellants called DWII one Ahmed Suleiman Gaya who sold to Wakili Musa. 
90. It is on record that the Appellants did not testify in person neither was the original holders called to testify. The court admitted the two documents Exhibits C and D1-D13 in evidence and no witness was called to link the Exhibits to the evidence on records. The report covered in Exhibit D1-D13 does not cover the land subject of dispute because the same Chiroma Mairiga Moh’d who sold to Isa Mamman through whom Respondent is claiming title was the same person who signed being the Village Head in favour of the Respondent.
91. It is the law that evaluation of relevant and material evidence before a court and the ascription of probative value to such evidence are the primary functions of the trial court, which saw, heard and assessed the witnesses while they testified. Where the trial court unquestionably evaluates the evidence and justifiably appraises the facts, it is not the business of the appellate court to substitute its own views for the views of the trial court. See, FAGBENRO V. AROBADI (2006) (supra) and OJOKOLOBO V. ALAMU (1998)9 NWLR (PT. 565) PG. 226 SC.
92. The Appellants submitted that Exhibit “A” should be discountenanced on the grounds that it did not fulfil the legal requirements of legal instrument but I am of the view that Exhibit A becomes legally admitted evidence which the court can rely on. The trial court rightly relied on Exhibit ‘A’, to establish that the Respondent proved a better title. See, BELLO SHORUMO V. THE STATE (2010) 12 SC NJ 109; OSENI V. THE STATE (2012) 2 SC NJ 215 at 253 and ADELEKE V. THE STATE (Supra), IPINLAIYE V. OLUTOKUN (1996) LPELR – 1532 (SC) PP. 19 – 21, PARAS. B – F, LAWAL V. STATE (1966) LPELR – 25333 (SC) PP. 6 – 8, PARAS. D-A and MUSA V. STATE (2019) LPELR – 46350 (SC) PP. 10 – 12, PARAS. C-A. Exhibit A as in this case is admissible in evidence to prove the payment of money, the description of the property, measurement and/or size, the boundaries as well as possession. See, AOMO LIMITED V. MARTINS (2017) LPELR – 43504 (CA);ATANDA V. HON. COMMISSIONER FOR LANDS & HOUSING, KWARA STATE & ANOR (2017) LPELR – 42346 (SC).
93. The Appellants Exhibits never suggested nor link them to the land in dispute. None of the Exhibits relied upon at the trial court expressly and/or unambiguously showed that the Appellants acquired the disputed land from anybody and the said Exhibits cannot be adequately utilized or relied on to grant the Appellants any title and it is also on record that the Appellants never counter claimed. 
94. Going by the Exhibits tendered by the Appellants, it is shown clearly that the Respondent’s Exhibit “A” is first in time and it is trite that by the doctrine of priority of interests the law has long been established that, where there are competing interests by two or more parties claiming title to land the earlier in time is stronger in law. See, GEGE V. NANDE (2005) 10 NWLR (PT. 988) PG 274 at 265 PARAS E-A. 
95. It is my humble but, firm view that the Respondent proved a better title through his witnesses, Exhibit A and the continuous unbroken chain to warrant the grant of his reliefs. The trial court adequately and diligently evaluated the evidence presented before it and this court should not and will not disturb or interfere with the well-considered view of the Learned Trial Judge. 
96. In sum, the appeal is unmeritorious and it is hereby dismissed for lacking in merit. The judgment of the High Court of Adamawa State, delivered in Case No. ADSY/49/2018 on 27th August, 2020 is hereby affirmed.
97. I award costs of N50,000.00 (Fifty Thousand Naira) to the Respondent against the Appellants.
100. HABEEB ADEWALE OLUMUYIWA ABIRU
102. I have had the privilege of reading before now the lead judgment delivered by my learned brother, ISAIAH OLUFEMI AKEJU, JCA. His lordship has considered and resolved the issues in contention in the appeal. I agree with the reasoning and abide the conclusion reached therein.
104. This appeal is against a final decision of the lower court. The respondent filed a notice of preliminary objection challenging the validity of the first ground of appeal on the ground that the complaints therein consisted of mixed facts and law and that the appellant did not seek the leave of court before filing same. This assertion of Counsel to the Respondent, with respect, is totally misconceived and show a lack of proper understanding of the provisions of Section 241, (1) and 242 (1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999. Section 241, (1) states, in part, that an appeal shall be as of right from the final decision of the High Court or the federal High Court and where the appeal is on grounds of law alone while Section 242 (1) states that appeal from the decisions of the High Court or of the Federal High Court to the Court of Appeal in all other instances, apart from those provided for in Section (241 (1), shall be with the leave of Court.
106. These provisions have been severally interpreted by the Courts to mean that leave to appeal is required where the appeal is against an interlocutory decision of the High Court and grounds of appeal are either on mixed law and facts or on facts alone, and that no leave to appeal is required where the appeal is against an interlocutory decision of the High Court and it is on grounds of law alone or where the appeal is against a final decision of the High Court irrespective of whether the grounds of appeal are on mixed law and facts or facts alone – Globestar Engineering Company (Nig.) Ltd Vs. Malle Holdings Ltd (1999) 10 NWLR (Pt. 622) 271, Ahamefule Vs. Imperial Medical Center (2005) 5 NWLR (Pt. 917) 51, NIC Vs. Acean Insurance Co. Ltd (2007) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1031) 589, Kalagbor Vs. General Oil Ltd. (2008) ALL FWLR (Pt. 418) 303, Ukachukwu Vs. Government of Borno State & Ors. (2017) LPELR-43271 (CA), Registered Trustee of the Prefecture Apostolic of Ibadan Vs. Aare Latosa (2019) LPELR-48118 (CA). The present appeal being against the final decision of the High Court of Adamawa State, leave to appeal was not required to appeal on grounds of mixed law and facts.
107. The tussle before the lower court was in respect of land ownership. The land in dispute was identified by the Respondent in his statement of claim to be the plot of land situate and lying at Anguwan Laide near the Federal Housing Estate Bajabure, in Girei Local Government measuring 100 feet by 100 feet and bounded on the north by the plot of land belonging to Dauda Zamani, on the east by a bakery, on the west by a small road and on the south by a plot of land belonging to Reverend Yusuf Feakoh. The Appellants did not contest this identity of the land in dispute in their statement of defence.
109. Both the Respondent and the first Appellant claimed ownership of the land in dispute. The task before the lower Court in this matter therefore was to determine who between the Respondent and the first Appellant led better evidence on the ownership of the land in. Where there are two claimants to a parcel of land, declaration of ownership is made in favour of the party that proves better title – Adole Vs. Gwer (2008) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1099) 562.
111. The case of the Respondent on the pleadings was that the land in dispute belonged to one Isa Mamman, and that it was part of the leftover of a larger parcel of the land of Isa Mamman after the Adamawa State Government had acquired part of the larger parcel of land in 2008 and paid compensation therefor. It was his case that Isa Mamman had purchased the larger parcel of land from one Jauro Lainde in 1997 and that Isa Mamman sold the land in dispute to him in 2007 for the sum of N110,00.00 as evidenced by a document in writing dated the 3rd of November, 2007. It was his case that he was in possession of the land until 2015 when the second Appellant trespassed thereon, acting on the instructions of the first Appellant and that the Appellant were stopped in their acts of trespass by Danladi Ibrahim, his representative on the land. The vendor of the Respondent, Isa Mamman, the Respondent and the said Danladi Ibrahim, the representative of the Respondent on the land in dispute, testified as the first, second and third plaintiff witnesses. Their evidence was in the exact terms of the case of the Respondent on the pleadings and they tendered the document evidencing sale of the land in dispute by Isa Mamman to the Respondent as Exhibit A.
113. The appellant in response denial the case of the Respondent and it was their case that the land in dispute formed part of the parcel of land comprised in the Adamawa state Government layout known as ADSGP 17 and was described thereon as Plot No. 20 “F” Road and that the land belonged to one Danbaba Buri, Director of Land and Survey, Adamawa State and who entrusted the land to one Sule Gaya and who sold the land to one Wakili Musa and evidenced by a Sale Agreement and that the first Appellant had been in possession of the land in dispute since 2012 until the Respondent trespassed therein and caused one Reverend Feako to build on a portion of the land.
115. One Caleb Waziri gave evidence as the first defence witness and his testimony consisted of a denial of the case of the Respondent and had no correlation with the case pleaded by the Appellants. Mallam Ahmed Suleiman Gaya was the second defence witness and he gave evidence in line with the pleadings of the Appellants and tendered the Sale Agreement between him and Wakili Musa as Exhibit B. The third defence witness was one Usman Umar, a staff of the Ministry of Land and Survey and who stated that he was in Court to tender documents only and he tendered the layout known as ADSGP 17 and evidence of compensation relating to the layout as Exhibit C and D1 to D13.
117. One thing that stood out from the case presented by the Appellants is that they did not plead how the first Appellant came to own the land in dispute and neither of them testified in proof of the ownership of the land by first Appellant. All they pleaded and led in evidence was that the land in dispute formed part of a layout and belonged to one Danbaba Buri, and who entrusted the land to Sule Gaya and who sold the land to one Wakili Musa and they tendered document evidencing the sale of the land to Wakili Musa and the layout as Exhibit B and C. They did not plead or lead evidence of the existence of any relationship between Danbaba Buri, said to be original owner of the land or Wakili Musa to whom the alnd was sold and the first Appellant.
119. It is trite law that where questions of ownership of land arise in litigation, the court seised of the matter is concerned with the relative strength of title proved by the rival parties. Therefore, if party ‘A’ can prove a better title than party ‘B’, he is entitled to succeed notwithstanding that ‘C’ may have a better title than ‘A’, if ‘C’ is neither a party to the action nor a person by whose authority ‘B’ is in possession or occupation – Arase Vs. Arase (1981) 5 SC 33 at 35 and Davies Vs. Ajibona (1994) 5 NWLR (Pt. 343) 234 at 258F, Nteogwuija Vs. Ikuru (1998) 10 NWLR (Pt. 569) 267. Now, neither Danbaba Buri nor Wakili Musa is a party to this suit and it was not the case of the first Appellant that she owned the land in dispute on the authority of either of them. Thus the pleadings and the evidence led on the ownership of the land by Danbaba Buri, and its sale to Wakili Musa are totally irrelevant in this case.
121. Now, it is trite law that in civil suits, cases are won upon a preponderance of evidence. The phrase ‘preponderance of evidence’ means the greater weight of the evidence, not necessarily established by the greater number of witnesses testifying to a fact but by evidence that has the most convincing force, superior evidentiary weight that, though not sufficient to free the mind wholly from all reasonable doubt, is still sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other – Okorie Vs. Unakalamba (2013) LPELR-22508 (CA), Okolie Vs. Okolie (2020) LPELR-51411 (CA), Bamgboye Vs. Owolabi (2022) LPELR-56885 (CA).
123. It is beyond contest in this matter that the case made out by the Respondent on the ownership of the land in dispute clearly preponderated over the case made out by the first Appellant. The lower Court was thus correct when it found that the Respondent made out a better case that the Appellants and entered judgment in his favour. It is for these reasons and the fuller exposition of the law in the lead judgment that I agree that there is no merit in this appeal. I too hereby dismiss the appeal and affirm the judgment delivered in Suit No. ADSY/49/2018 by the High Court of Adamawa State, coram Honourable Justice A. A. Waziri (as then was) on the 27th of August, 2020. I abide the order on costs in the lead judgment.
126. PETER OYINKENIMIEMI AFFEN, JCA
128. My Lord, ISAIAH OLUFEMI AKEJU, JCA obliged me with a draft of the leading judgment just delivered, and I have had the advantage of reading it before now.
130. I agree with his Lordship’s reasoning and conclusion on the issues raised, which I hereby adopt as mine in dismissing this appeal and affirming the judgment of the High Court of Adamawa State delivered on 27th August 2019. I equally abide by the consequential order on costs.

COUNSEL

O. B. Faison, Esq. for the Appellants.

Aji Kamale, Esq. for the Respondent.