In the Supreme Court
On FRIDAY, 4TH MAY, 2018
SC.313/2010
Before Their Lordships
IBRAHIM TANKO MUHAMMAD JSC JSC
OLUKAYODE ARIWOOLA JSC JSC
KUMAI BAYANG AKA'AHS JSC JSC
AMINA ADAMU AUGIE JSC JSC
PAUL ADAMU GALINJE JSC JSC
Between
ALHAJI ABATCHA MOHAMMED KOLO
And
ALHAJI MOHAMMED LAWAN
The Respondent's case is that he bought the disputed piece of land one Mallam Mustapha Amatani in 1977 at the cost of N6,000.00 in the presence of witnesses. He claimed that Mustapha Amatami inherited the land from his father. After buying the land in 1977, he took possession and sometimes in 1987 he decided to convert his customary right of occupancy to statutory right of occupancy. He submitted an application to Borno State Government for that purpose. As a result of his application a file no. BO/30798 was assigned to him as his certificate number. He was in possession of the said land until in 1996 when one Alhaji Mohammed Ali who claimed his title through the present Appellant by purchase entered the land and started fencing it. It was this entrance into the land that prompted the Respondent to sue Mohammed Ali. Mohammed Ali in his defence relied heavily on certificate of occupancy No. BO/12336 which the present appellant is relying on. While the Suit No. M/187/96 between the Respondent and Mohammed Ali was going on, the present Appellant was fully aware and after Mohammed Ali lost the case, the Appellant herein collected the certificate of occupancy through which Mohammed Ali claimed title to the disputed land in order to pursue this case. At the conclusion of the trial before the Borno State High Court, the appellant's claims were dismissed. The Certificate of Occupancy - Exhibit C, held by the appellant was held to be void as there was in existence, a deemed right of occupancy over the same land in favour of the defendant, instant respondent. Aggrieved, the appellant filed an appeal to the court below and the said appeal was dismissed. The judgment of the trial Court was accordingly affirmed with costs awarded against the appellant but in favour of the respondent. Further aggrieved, the appellant has appealed to the Supreme Court.