The appellant in this court was the plaintiff in the Grade One Court Bukuru, Plateau Sate of Nigeria. His claim was for the declaration of title to a piece or parcel of land, which he claimed was a loan to the defendant's father. The defendant is the respondent in this court. The claim before the trial court by the appellant is stated as follows:-

At the trial the appellant called one witness who testified on his behalf. Both Damu (PW1) gave evidence in support of the appellant's claim. He said that he shared a common boundary with the appellant and he described the boundary features, He did not know whether the respondent had a farm or not. There was evidence that a company excavated the land and paid compensation to the appellant for 20 years. He was told by his father that the farm land belonged to the appellant. That in substance was the evidence tendered by the appellant before the respondent testified and called three witnesses.

The respondent gave evidence that the land devolved on him from his father. He was farming on the land for 50 years and no one disturbed him until last year, when the appellant started laying claim to the ownership of the land in dispute. The appellant wanted to farm on it, but he refused. Hence this action. He called three witnesses in support of his case that the land belonged to him. Jatau Bai (D W 1) did not know whether the land in dispute belonged to the respondent as it had taken many years. Danboyi Pwol (D W 2) testified that the respondent told him he had a farm but he did not know the actual owner. Cham Davor (D W 3) confirmed he did not know how both parties came into possession of the land in dispute. That was the case for the respondent.

The evidence of the appellant and his witness was not challenged by the respondent. The respondent had no question. The respondent did not categorically if at all deny the payment of compensation to the appellant except that the respondent asserted that his father was not alive at the time.

After the court had heard the evidence of the parties and the witnesses on oath and then it proceeded to visit the locus in quo. Questions were put to both the appellant and the respondent and, not being satisfied with the state of the evidence, the trial Area Court Judge decided to administer an oath to the appellant and his witnesses after which judgment was entered in favour of the appellant.

The respondent being dissatisfied with the judgment appealed to the Customary Court of Appeal which allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment of the trial court.

The appellant therefore appealed to the Court of Appeal against the decision of the Customary court of Appeal.