Whether the Lack of Counter-Signature of the Surveyor-General Will Render a Survey Plan Void

CASE TITLE: ISA v. HAMMAN & ORS (2024) LPELR-63082(CA)
JUDGMENT DATE: 28TH NOVEMBER, 2024
PRACTICE AREA: LAND LAW
LEAD JUDGMENT: NNAMDI OKWY DIMGBA, J.C.A.

SUMMARY OF JUDGMENT:

INTRODUCTION:

This appeal borders on Land Law.

FACTS:

This appeal is against the judgment of the High Court of Taraba State (trial Court) delivered by I. M. Sambo J. on 20th January 2021.

​The facts of the case leading to this appeal are that the appellant as “plaintiff” sued the respondents as “defendants” at the trial Court claiming title to the land bounded to the East by one Muhammed, South by one Alimadu Mashi, one Adi Babawo, one Joshua, and West by one Justina Joshua, Amina at Mayo-Gwoi settlement of Jalingo Local Government Area of Taraba State. In the suit, the respondents did not contest the claim of title of the appellant. Still, they contended that the appellant’s land does not extend to the access road used by the general public, as the same predated the advent of the appellant in the settlement. The trial Court by its decision, dismissed the claim of the appellant.

Dissatisfied with the decision of the trial Court, the appellant appealed against same.

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION:

The Court adopted the issues formulated by the appellant in the determination of the appeal, thus:

1. Whether the trial lower Court was right to dismiss the Appellant’s claim having adduced cogent, reliable evidences of Appellant’s title to the land by both parties?

2. Whether the trial lower Court was right to have held that a private survey plan to be valid and relied upon shall be counter-signed by the State Surveyor-General?

3. Whether the trial lower Court was right to held that the Appellant should have called his neighbors as witness to establish his boundary despite not having any dispute with any of his boundaries?

4. Whether the trial lower Court was right to held that the oral evidence of the plaintiff/Appellant is in contradiction with the exhibits tendered?

DECISION/HELD:

In the final analysis, the appeal was dismissed.

RATIOS:         

• EVIDENCE- WRONGFUL ADMISSION/REJECTION OF EVIDENCE: Duty of Court to expunge wrongly admitted evidence; effect of wrongly admitted evidence
• EVIDENCE- CALLING OF WITNESS(ES): Discretion of party (ies) in calling witnesses; effect of failure to call vital witness (es)
• EVIDENCE- CALLING OF WITNESS(ES): Who is a vital witness and effect where a party fails to call a vital witness
• EVIDENCE- CONTRADICTION IN EVIDENCE: How should the court treat a witness where there is contradiction/inconsistency in his statement/evidence
• LAND LAW- DECLARATION OF TITLE TO LAND: Duty of plaintiff/claimant in an action for declaration of title to land; effect of failure
• LAND LAW- SURVEY PLAN: Whether the lack of counter-signature of the surveyor-general will render a survey plan void

To read the full judgment or similar judgments, subscribe to Prime or Primsol