➥ CASE SUMMARY OF:
Grace Madu Vs Dr. Betram Madu (2008) – Supreme Court
by Branham Chima (LL.B.)
➥ SUBJECT MATTER(S)
Resulting trust;
Perpetual injunction against trespass.
➥ CASE FACT/HISTORY
The plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as the appellant) and the defendant (hereinafter referred to as the respondent) got married sometime in 1976 and cohabited as husband and wife. They had four children. They ceased to live together as husband and wife from November 1993. By a Land Application Form dated 15th May, 1990, Ref. No. MFCT/LA/90/AN/2685, the Ministry of Federal Capital Territory, Land Administration Department, acting on the instruction of the Honourable Minister acknowledged the receipt of the application form for allocation of land duly completed by the appellant. Suffice it to say that the written response of the Minister dated 15th July, 1990 was addressed to the appellant. According to the appellant, the respondent, her husband then, and who was a staff of the Federal Capital Development Authority, was entrusted by her with the processing of the application and follow up towards obtaining the Certificate of Occupancy. She (the appellant) claimed she made available to her husband, the respondent, all the money needed to facilitate the allocation of the plot of land to her. The respondent however contended that he paid all the expenses on the land. He also claimed that he informed the appellant that he would apply for the land using the appellant’s name and that the appellant never raised any objection to the idea. It was at this stage that cohabitation between the husband and wife ceased. The respondent at this point in time went and collected the original Certificate of Occupancy. When the appellant realised that the respondent had collected the Certificate of Occupancy without her knowledge and consent; she demanded for the release of same to her. But the respondent refused to hand it over to her. And all entreaties for the release having failed, the appellant sought a redress from the court of law.
This is an appeal against the decision of the court below (Court of Appeal sitting in Abuja) delivered on the 12th of April, 2002 allowing the respondent’s appeal, setting aside the judgment of the trial court delivered on the 24th March 2000 and in its place, entered an order dismissing the plaintiff/appellant’s claim in toto.
➥ ISSUE(S)
I. Whether the defence of resulting trust as pleaded by the respondent in this case avails the respondent?
➥ RESOLUTION(S) OF ISSUES
[APPEAL ALLOWED]
↪️ ISSUE 1: IN APPELLANT’S FAVOUR.
[THE BEARER ON THE C-OF-O IS THE OWNER OF THE LAND
‘The appellant predicated her title to the land of Certificate of Occupancy which bears her name although in the possession of the defendant/respondent. The application which she completed also bears her name. The written approval to her application form together with the letter of acceptance signed by her, both tendered as Exhibits P1 and P2 respectively also carry her name. Once a person is granted a Certificate of Occupancy over a parcel of land, he is entitled to hold same to the exclusion of any other person unless and until the Certificate of Occupancy is set aside. See GANIKON V. UGOCHUKWU CHEM. IND. LTD (1993) 6 NWLR (pt.297) 55. And documents of title are clear evidence of transaction between the parties thereto. See ATUNRASE & ORS V. PHILIPS & ORS. (1996) 1 NWLR (pt.427) 637. From the pleadings of the plaintiff/appellant, it is beyond argument that she predicated her case on documents, the most important of which is the Certificate of Occupancy issued. by the Federal Capital Development Authority as a result of her documentary application forwarded to the Authority. This court in its decisions in OSAZUWA V. OJO (1999) 13 NWLR (pt.634) 286; SHOGO V. ADEBAYO (2000) 14 NWLR (pt.686) 121 and EZEANAN V. ATTA (2004) 4 M.J.S.C.I, held that a Certificate of Occupancy properly issued as in the instant case where there is no dispute that the document was properly issued by a competent authority raised that the holder is the owner in exclusive possession of the land. The Certificate also raises the presumption that at the time it was issued, there was not in existence a customary owner whose title has not been revoked. It should however be noted that the presumption is rebuttable because if it is proved by evidence that another person had a better title to the land before the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy in which case the Certificate of Occupancy will stand revoked by the court. The contention of the defendant/respondent is that, the land was allocated to him in the name of the plaintiff/appellant (his wife) as a result of what he called some circumstances which he failed to explain through his testimony. His main defence is that he (defendant/respondent) is holding the said land on resulting trust basis. See also S. O. Ukpai V. U. O. Okoro & Ors (1983) LLJR-SC’
NO EVIDENCE TO INFER RESULTING TRUST
‘Although, the respondent in his evidence before the trial court said he paid all the money required for the land; but contrary to this assertion, all the receipts are in the name of the appellant. Again, he said he collected the C of O of the plot of land not on behalf of the appellant but as the owner. While agreeing that the Certificate of Occupancy was in the name of the appellant, he was emphatic that the said document was in his possession. He again said that he informed the Federal Capital Development Authority that the land he applied for was for him but that he made it in the name of the appellant. He agreed that he did not forward a written information to the FCDA. The evaluation of these pieces of evidence by the trial judge that they do not create resulting trust cannot be faulted. It is well grounded. There is no presumption of the parties to this case, based on the evidence before the trial court that could have created a resulting trust. The evidence on record has not indicated that an intention that a resulting trust should be created between the parties. If any thing at all, the bare assertion by the respondent that a resulting trust was intended by both of them to be created, has been rebutted by the clear and uncontradicted evidence of the plaintiff/appellant as found by the trial judge. The lower court was therefore in a serious error when it found that the defence of resulting trust as raised by the defendant/respondent has been proved from the facts and circumstances of this case.’]
.
.
.
✓ DECISION:
‘Accordingly, the appeal is hereby allowed, the judgment of the court below is hereby set aside. For the umpteenth time, I wish to say that from the totality of the evidence placed before the trial judge, it is very clear that the plaintiff/appellant personally applied for and paid for Plot No.327 covered by Certificate of Occupancy No. FCT/ABU/AN.2685 and same was consequentially validly allocated to her by the appropriate authority. To the extent to which the defendant/respondent is meddling with the said property, he is a trespasser. The interest of justice demands that the judgment of the trial court be here restored.’
➥ FURTHER DICTA:
⦿ FIVE WAYS TO PROVE TITLE TO LAND
As rightly submitted by the appellant in her brief of argument, it has now become firmly established that there are five ways of establishing title to land and they are: – (1) by traditional evidence (2) by document of title (3) by various acts of ownership and possession numerous and positive to warrant inference of ownership (4) by acts of long possession and enjoyment of the land; and (5) by proof of possession of adjacent land to the land in dispute in such circumstances which render it probable that the owner of the adjacent land is the owner of the land in dispute. See IDUNDUN V. OKUMAGBA (1976) 9-10 S.C. 227 and ATANDA V. AJANI (1989) 3 NWLR (pt. 111) 511. — Aderemi JSC.
⦿ UNLESS SET ASIDE, BEARER OF CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY IS THE OWNER OF LAND
Once a person is granted a Certificate of Occupancy over a parcel of land, he is entitled to hold same to the exclusion of any other person unless and until the Certificate of Occupancy is set aside. See GANIKON V. UGOCHUKWU CHEM. IND. LTD (1993) 6 NWLR (pt.297) 55. And documents of title are clear evidence of transaction between the parties thereto. See ATUNRASE & ORS V. PHILIPS & ORS. (1996) 1 NWLR (pt.427) 637. — Aderemi JSC.
⦿ RESULTING TRUST IS BASED ON THE UNEXPRESSED BUT PRESUMED INTENTION OF THE TRUE OWNER
What does “Resulting Trust” connote Before I answer that question, let me quickly say that the doctrine of “Resulting Trust” is based upon the unexpressed but presumed intention of the true owner. — Aderemi JSC.
⦿ PERPETUAL INJUNCTION AGAINST TRESPASS CANNOT BE GRANTED IN FAVOUR OF AN ALLOTEE/LESSEE OF LAND
I hereby pause to make a little observation before I continue with this judgment. In the third leg of the reliefs claim, the plaintiff/appellant prayed for the following relief: – “An order of perpetual injunction restraining the defendant from further trespassing into the said plot.” Going by the evidence before the court, the absolute owner of the plot is Federal Capital Development Authority. The plaintiff/appellant is an allottee or a lessee – in other words, she is a limited owner. The Federal Capital Development Authority has not been made a party to this case. In Chief Dada, The Lojaoke v. Chief Shittu Ogunremi & Anor (1967) NMLR 181, this court, at page 184 said and I quote: – ”It is improper to grant a perpetual injunction at the instance of a limited owner when, the owner of the absolute interest is not a party to the case.” — Aderemi JSC.
➥ LEAD JUDGEMENT DELIVERED BY:
Aderemi, J.S.C.
➥ APPEARANCES
⦿ FOR THE APPELLANT(S)
Mrs. Adesina.
⦿ FOR THE RESPONDENT(S)
Mr. Umoh.
➥ MISCELLANEOUS POINTS
➥ REFERENCED (LEGISLATION)
➥ REFERENCED (CASE)
➥ REFERENCED (OTHERS)
