The respondent's case was that the land in dispute was given to him in 1968 as an outright gift by its previous owner by name Yamagaram Kura, the former Magaram Borno now deceased. Upon the gift of the land by the donor, he the respondent took effective possession thereof by fencing it with a barbed wire, zana-mat and trees planted to demarcate the boundary. Since the grant, he has been cultivating the land with annual crops such as millet, cow-peas, sorghum, maize and groundnuts from which he realises more than N15,000 per annum. In 1976 he applied to the Borno State Government for and was granted a Certificate of Occupancy No. BO/406 for 99 years in respect of the land. In or about May, 1984, the 3rd and 4th appellants, their agents and/or workmen trespassed on the said land and have since prevented the respondent from carrying on his usual farming activities. When the respondent confronted the 3rd and 4th appellants on the act of trespass, they told him that they bought the land from inspite of his several warnings to the appellants they have continued in their acts of trespass and have thereby disrupted the respondent's farming activities on the land and caused him financial losses.

The 1st appellant is the current Magaram Borno and the successor in title to the respondent's donor. The 1st and 2nd appellants denied the respondent's title and claimed that the land in dispute is part of the land transferred to the 1st appellant and which by custom is enjoyed as stool land by the reigning magaram Borno. The purported gift to the respondent is void. The land was initially given to the respondent by the 1st appellant on loan to farm on payment of some percentage of annual harvest to the first appellant as a token of acknowledgment of the 1st appellant's ownership of the land. It is the 1st appellant's case that the respondent and the other appellants are occupying the land at the pleasure of the 1st appellant. The respondent never realised up to N500 per annum from his farming activities on the land.

The 3rd and 4th appellants maintained that the land in dispute was the bona fide property of the 1st appellant's mother who gave same on loan to the respondent many years ago. The ownership of the land devolved on the 1st appellant and in exercise of her right the 1st appellant sold part of the land to the 3rd appellant in 1985 and in the same year the 3rd appellant transferred the portion to the 4th appellant. It was the case of the 3rd and 4th appellants that the respondent was on the land in dispute as a tenant of the 1st appellant who had been the customary title holder thereof. They denied trespassing on the respondent's land and denied that respondent had ever realised N15,000 per annum from crops cultivated on the land in dispute.

The 3rd parties denied the material averments in the 1st and 2nd appellants' statement of defence and confirmed that the land in dispute was in 1968 given to the respondent as a gift by Yanagaram Kura in the presence of witnesses. The respondent applied for a certificate of Occupancy and after complying with the necessary formalities, a letter of grant dated 26th May, 1988 was issued to him and subsequently a Certificate of Occupancy No. BO/406 of 10/11/87 was also issued to him.

At the trial, the respondent gave evidence substantially in line with his pleadings. He also called one other witness who owns a piece of land adjacent to the land in dispute. The four appellants led no evidence so also the third parties who rested their case on that of the respondent. On 14th October 1992, the lower court entered judgment for the respondent granting to him all the declaratory and injunctive reliefs sought. It awarded to him special damages of N30,000 being loss of earnings from May 1984 from the farmland as a result of the appellants' interference with the respondent's farming activities. The court also awarded general damages of N10,000 in favour of the respondent against all the appellants with N500 costs also in favour of the respondent. The 1st and 2nd appellants counter-claim was dismissed.

The appellants were dissatisfied and appealed to the Court of Appeal.