CaseLaw
Silli V. Mosoka (1997) CLR 1 (d) (CA)
Brief
Facts
The respondent was the plaintiff before the Area Court Shelling in an action he instituted against the appellant as defendant wherein he claimed title to a disputed piece of farmland.
At the trial, the respondent's case was that the land in dispute belonged to his senior brother or ancestor who later gave it to the appellant's brother by name Yasukuma. He stated that when he went to the ward leader to recover the land, the appellant promised to show him the land but later refused to do so hence he instituted the action. The respondent called four witnesses to prove his case. Summarily, their evidence is that the land in dispute was cleared by Nyogula the respondent's brother or ancestor and that after the death of Nyogula the land subsequently and successively devolved on Milema, Suruhal and Uchuman. It was in evidence that the land was given to Yasukuma the appellant's senior brother from whom it later passed to the appellant. It was conceded that the defendant/appellant had been in possession of the farmland for about 50 years. It was asserted that at one time the respondent approached the appellant to recover the land and when the appellant refused to yield up possession both parties went on arbitration before the village head. There, the appellant agreed to surrender the land but he subsequently resiled from that agreement.
On his part, the defendant/appellant denied the assertions that Yasokana the respondent's brother gave the land to him. He asserted that he got the land from Salami through Jauro. The defendant/appellant called two witnesses viz: Karatu DW1 and Jauro Bagala DW2 who confirmed that the appellant had been in possession of the land by farming on it for many years and that there was no arbitration over the dispute before the village head.
Upon the foregoing facts, the trial Area Court found that there was no evidence that the respondent inherited the land nor that he even farmed thereon but that there was overwhelming evidence that the appellant had been in possession of the land for about 50 years. Accordingly the Area Court dismissed the respondent's claim and adjudged the appellant the owner of the land. On an appeal by the respondent to the Upper Area Court, that court affirmed the decision of the Area Court on the ground that the respondent did not prove a better title than the appellant who had been in possession of the land for more than 50 years.
On a further appeal to the High Court Yola sitting in its appellate jurisdiction, that court reversed the decisions of the Area Court and Upper Area Court and adjudged the respondent as the owner of the land. In doing so, the learned Justices of the High Court opined that the issue of long possession by the appellant was irrelevant and that the respondent had proved good title to the land. The learned Justices also relied on the fact that the respondent showed to them some "traditional sticks" indicating the number of years the respondent had rented out the land to the appellant. Those sticks were treated as additional evidence by virtue of section 59(2) of the Area Court Edict 1968.
A further appeal was lodged.
Whether the learned Judges of the lower courts were right in holding