Land Law (544)
HELD:
"PW2 and PW3 only gave evidence to the effect that they inherited the land in dispute from their parents through traditional inheritance and that it was one Mallam Abubakar Haruna that bought the land from the parents of PW2 & PW3's parents.
HELD:
"The mere tendering of the Certificate of Occupancy Exhibit 4, does not automatically prove that the land in dispute belongs to the Appellant, without going further to establish the title of the alleged customary owner of the land in dispute.
HELD:
"I shall call in aid, a judicial authority on the need of root of title which I consider germane at this stage.
HELD:
"On the contradictions with regards to the description and location of the land in dispute, the law is trite that where parties are at idem on the location, any disparity on the description or what it is called is not fatal.
HELD:
"The law is that once a party pleads and traces root of title to a particular person, he must proceed to establish how that person came about the title to the said land, see NGENE V. IGBO & ANOR (2000) LPELR-1987(SC) wherein Per IGUH, J.S.C had this to say:
HELD:
"Section 51(1) of the Land Use Act defines "holder" as: