Authored By: Ololade Adelaja
Freelance
1. Case Title & Citation
Salisu Ibrahim Jega (suing through his Attorney, Dr. Sanni Umar Abubakar) v. Ekanem Ekpenyong
(2025) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1998) 33, SC/349/2019
2. Court & Bench
Court: Supreme Court of Nigeria
Judges: Uwani Musa Abba Aji JSC (Presiding), Ibrahim Mohammed Musa Saulawa JSC, Chioma Egondu Nwosu-Iheme JSC, Obande Festus Ogbuinya JSC (leading judgment), Habeeb Adewale Olumuyiwa Abiru JSC.
3. Date of Judgment
31 January 2025
4. Parties
Appellant: Salisu Ibrahim Jega (represented by attorney).
Respondent: Ekanem Ekpenyong.
5. Facts
In 2003, the appellant was granted a right of occupancy over Plot 3267, Asokoro District, Abuja, later formalised by a Certificate of Occupancy (C of O) in 2005 for 99 years. The appellant exercised ownership by paying ground rents and appointing an attorney.
In 2012, the respondent claimed ownership based on a subsequent Right of Occupancy issued over the same land, and attempted to take possession. The appellant sued for declaration of title, injunction, and damages. The respondent counterclaimed, asserting his own title.
The trial court ruled in favour of the appellant, striking out the counterclaim.
The Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the appellant lacked locus standi and failed to prove identity of land; it also accepted the respondent’s allegation of forgery against the appellant’s C of O.
Dissatisfied, the appellant appealed to the Supreme Court.
6. Issues
Whether the suit was competent and properly constituted as to parties and jurisdiction.
Whether the identity of the land was proved.
Whether forgery of the appellant’s C of O was established.
Whether the Court of Appeal was right to uphold respondent’s title despite the subsisting earlier C of O of the appellant.
Whether the appellant was entitled to the reliefs claimed.
7. Arguments
Appellant:
– Had a valid, subsisting C of O issued in 2005, which conferred superior title.
– Respondent’s allegation of forgery was unsupported by particulars or proof beyond reasonable doubt.
– Identity of the land was never in dispute between parties.
– Court of Appeal erred in stripping him of locus standi.
Respondent:
– Claimed ownership under a later Right of Occupancy issued in 2012.
– Alleged that appellant’s C of O was forged.
– Raised objection that he was not personally served with the notice of appeal, thus robbing the Supreme Court of jurisdiction.
8. Judgment / Decision
Preliminary objection: Dismissed. Service of notice of appeal through respondent’s counsel was valid; failure to object timeously amounted to waiver.
Merits: Appeal allowed.
– Forgery was not proved; allegations lacked particulars and evidential support.
– Identity of the land was not in dispute; thus, the Court of Appeal erred.
– A certificate of occupancy is prima facie (not conclusive) evidence of title, but where there are competing titles from the same grantor, priority is given to the earlier in time.
– The appellant’s 2005 C of O had priority over the respondent’s 2012 grant.
The Supreme Court restored the judgment of the trial court in favour of the appellant.
9. Ratio Decidendi
– Forgery must be proved beyond reasonable doubt and with particulars; mere pleading is insufficient.
– Identity of land is only in issue if disputed by the opponent; absent such dispute, it is deemed admitted.
– Earlier title prevails where parties trace competing interests to the same grantor (qui prior est tempore potior est jure).
– Certificate of Occupancy is prima facie evidence of title, not conclusive.
– Locus standi exists where claimant shows sufficient interest in subject matter; chances of success are irrelevant to standing.
– Service of notice of appeal through counsel constitutes valid service; objections must be raised promptly or they are waived.
10. Conclusion / Observations
The case reinforces the doctrine of priority of interests in land law under the Land Use Act.
It clarifies limits of forgery allegations in civil suits and reaffirms that courts will not lightly displace vested property rights.
It also underscores the importance of procedural rules on service and the principle that jurisdiction cannot be defeated by undue technicalities once substantial justice is met.
