MANEKE V. MANEKE: On whether verbal declarations can confer title to land under customary law : An insight into the Court of Appeal decision in MANEKE V. MANEKE. Citation: [2020]13 NWLR PT.1741 at PG. 311. Courtesy: Moruff O. Balogun Esq.

Summary of facts:
The respondents’ father was the senior brother of the appellant’s late father R.I.C. Maneke (senior). According to the appellant, his father R.I.C. Maneke (senior) was the owner of the land in dispute before it got to him. His claim was that his father’s elder brother sold all lands belonging to him and his younger brother, late father of the appellant who was R.I.C. Maneke (senior). The appellant’s father later demanded from the respondents’ father that land be given to him as “ana obi meaning “living compound”. He replied that there were no more lands because respondents’ father had already sold all their lands which were jointly owned by the two brothers. As at that time, there was only one plot of land remaining. This was why the respondents’ father gave the land to the appellant’s father.

The appellant claimed that while the respondents’ father was sick, he gave instructions to his daughter Mrs. Udenwa Onwuodinjo; to talk to the appellant’s father regarding the obligations he should carry out in his family when he dies. This included the gift of the said land he gave the appellant’s father. That the appellant’s father carried out the instructions in the said written note which was thumb printed by the respondents’ father in the presence of witnesses as well as taking possession of the land given to him by the respondents’ father. The appellant’s father took over possession of the said land by surveying it and the appellant in 1972 built a concrete perimeter fence on the compound, and has been putting tenants in the land in dispute, and issuing them quit notices without interference from any quarters including the respondents, until 2011 when the appellant sought to put on a structure on the land, by bringing blocks thereon. The respondents were warned to desist from trespassing on the land by a Solicitor’s letter but to no avail.

By writ of summons dated 16th February 2011 and in an amended statement of claim filed on the 16th of May 2012 the appellant claimed against the respondents declaration of entitlement to a statutory right of occupancy over the said piece or parcel of land known as “The Landed Property of R.I.C. Maneke” situate at Aguiyi Lane in Umuzocha Village, Awka, Awka South Local Government Area of Anambra State; order of perpetual injunction; order of mandatory injunction and N200,000 (Two Hundred Thousand Naira only) as damages for trespass unto the appellant’s land.

The respondents denied that their late father Ngwu Maneke gave the land in dispute to the appellant’s father R.I.C. Maneke (Senior) alleging that the compound in dispute belonged to their grandfather Maneke Ifejika and that the land in dispute was inherited by their father Ngwu Maneke according to Awka Native Law and Custom. The respondents stated that their father gave no instructions to their sister Mrs. Udenwa Onwuodinjo to write any words concerning the gift of the land in dispute to the appellant’s father and that the 1st respondent, being the first son of Ngwu Maneke inherited the disputed land. Their father lacked the power to give the said land to R.I.C. Maneke.

At the conclusion of hearing, the trial court dismissed the appellant’s claims.

Dissatisfied with the judgment of the trial court, the appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal.

Held : (Unanimously dismissing the appeal)

The Court of Appeal raised and considered the following issues:

On whether verbal declarations can confer title to land under customary law:
There are customs where mere verbal declaration in the presence of witnesses can confer title. In addition, there are occasions where at a family meeting, verbal conveyances are made in the presence of witnesses. The provision of section 83(1) and (2) of the Evidence
Act is apt in this regard. There is a clear distinction between means by which title to land can be proved and mode of acquisition of title, with particular regard to the requirements in customary law. In the instant case, the parties were blood related, including the purported author of exhibit P4. Exhibit “P4 would have passed the test of instrument of title to the land in dispute by customary law but for the lacuna which went to the lack of authenticity of exhibit “P4”. (P. 329, paras. E-H)

Per PEMU, J.C.A. at pages 328-329, paras. H-G:
“I wonder why the appellant did not call the author of exhibit “P4” to testify. Both parties are agreed that the matter has to do with customary transaction. The appellant referred to exhibit “P4″ in his pleadings as document of title”. But in his brief he referred to it as “an ordinary instruction”. The appellant had also agreed that his claim to the land in dispute is based on the Native Law and Custom and not or conveyance. But he has to prove: his assertion by credible and cogent evidence.
Anybody can rely on any piece of paper, but not in this kind of land transaction.
There are exhibits which show that the appellant was in possession of the land in disputes by tendering receipts to show that he had leased the land in dispute to tenants.
Howbeit, the authority that bestowed that title of ownership on him is what is the issue now.

At page 358 of the record of appeal, the learned trial Judge held inter alia as follows:
“Exhibit “P4″ is not an instrument for transfer of title or deed of title. It cannot transfer title of the land in dispute to the plaintiff and I so hold”.

The genuineness and validity of exhibit P4 is questionable, having taken a cursory look at it.
There is a clear distinction between means by which title to land can be proved and mode of acquisition of title, with particular regard to the requirements in customary law.

The setting inherent in this case is that of customary law. The parties are blood related, including the purported author of exhibit P4. I do not agree with the court below that exhibit “P4″ cannot confer title to the land in dispute. There are customs where mere verbal declaration in the presence of witnesses can confer title. There are occasions where at a family meeting, verbal conveyances are made in the presence of witnesses.

The provision of section 83(1) and (2) of the Evidence Act is apt.”

On Proof of title to land:
A party seeking a declaration of title to land is not bound to plead and prove more than one root of title to succeed but he is entitled to rely on more than one root of title. However, where he relies on traditional history and in addition, acts of ownership and long possession predicated on the traditional history as pleaded, he is not entitled to a declaration of title, based on the evidence of acts of ownership and long possession where the evidence of traditional history is unavailing.

On Whether production of document of title automatically entitles party to declaration of title to land and principles governing admission of document of title as proof of ownership-
Production of a deed of conveyance or any document of title does not automatically entitle a party to a claim in declaration. Therefore, before a document of title is admitted as sufficient proof of ownership, the court must satisfy itself that:
(a) The document is genuine or valid.
(b) It has been duly executed, stamped and registered.
(c) The grantor has authority and capacity to make the grant.
(d) The grantor has in fact what he proposes to grant.
(e) That the grant has the effect claimed by the holder of the instrument.

On Need to call maker of a document where its authenticity is challenged –
Where a document is challenged and impugned as unauthentic, the maker of the document should be called to support the document, otherwise no weight should be attached to it. In the instant case, exhibit “P4” was impeachable. Its authenticity was questionable. This was because the appellant failed to lay enough foundation for its admissibility in court. And even if he did, exhibit “P4” lacked probative value. The appellant should have called the author of exhibit “P4” who was alive at the time of the trial in this suit, the subject matter of the appeal, to testify.

On Whether claimant who fails to prove root of title as pleaded can rely on acts of possession or ownership to prove title to land –
Where a claimant fails to prove, as pleaded, the traditional history to establish his root of title by that means, he cannot and should not be allowed to turn round to rely on merely acts of ownership and possession upon which his claim to title of the land in dispute was originally based. Thus, where a claimant of title to land pleads traditional history but fails to prove his root of title as pleaded, he cannot turn around to rely on acts of possession to establish his title to the land. It is not permissible in law to support a non-existent root of title that has failed with acts of possession which would have derived from that root. In the instant case, the appellant relied on traditional history based on the document that transferred title to his father. The court was therefore right to have considered only the appellant evidence of his root of title and refused to consider the evidence of long possession or acts of ownership.

Courtesy:
Moruff O. Balogun Esq.
IJEBU ODE, OGUN STATE.
08052871414.