Author: fredericknkobowo

INSUFFICIENT DENIAL IN PLEADINGS

March 6, 2023

Written by Carrington Omokaro, Esq

An averment in a statement of defence which states “The defendant denies paragraph _ and puts l NJ the plaintiff to the strictest proof” or “The defendant is not in a position to admit or deny _ and will at the trial put the plaintiff to proof”, amounts to an insufficient denial. Such averment does not deny the facts sufficiently enough to raise any issue in respect of the said facts. Where there is no issue the question of burden of proof does not arise. – Lewis & Peat (N.R.I) Ltd v. A.E Akhimien (1976) 7 SC 157

Explanation

In the case earlier cited, the Appellant as plaintiff in his statement of claim averred

1️⃣. The Plaintiffs are a trading company registered in Nigeria with their Headquarters in Ogbarefe in the Midwestern State.

2️⃣The Plaintiffs buy rubber lumps and process them for export

The Respondent as defendant at the trial court in paragraph 3 of the statement of defence stated The defendant is not in a position to admit or deny paragraphs 1 & 2 of the statement of claim and would put the Plaintiffs to the strictest proof thereof.

During address, learned counsel for the respondent for the first time raised the question of capacity of the appellants to sue. He submitted that there was “no legal person before the court as there is no averment that the plaintiff is a legal person.” Continuing his submissions he pointed out that no certificate of incorporation of the appellants’ company was exhibited at the trial and that in the circumstances the appellants could neither sue nor be sued. The learned trial Judge in a considered judgment held that the appellants having failed to establish their corporate personality could not maintain the claim which must be dismissed. The trial Judge further stated that “_When the corporate existence of plaintiff was impugned by the defendant, it became necessary for the plaintiff to adduce evidence in proof thereof of the fact of incorporation. Oral assertion by a junior employee of the company is not enough. The certificate of incorporation or registration under the Companies Act…………………….. should be tendered or evidence of its non-existence given

On Appeal to the Supreme Court, the Apex Court in allowing the Appeal stated

“If a defendant refuses to admit a particular allegation in the statement of claim, he must state so specifically; and he does not do this satisfactorily by pleading thus: “defendant is not in a position to admit or deny (the particular allegation in the statement of claim) and will at the trial put the plaintiff to proof”. As was held in Harris v. Gamble (1878) 7 Ch D 877. A plea that “defendant puts plaintiffs to proof” amounts to insufficient denial…We are, therefore, of the opinion that paragraph 3 of the Statement of Defence did not deny the facts alleged in paragraphs 1 & 3 of the Statement of Claim sufficiently enough to raise any issue in respect of the facts”.

Written by Carrington Omokaro, Esq An averment in a statement of defence which states “The defendant denies paragraph _ and puts l NJ the plaintiff to the strictest proof” or “The defendant is not in a position to admit or deny _ and will at the trial put the plaintiff to proof”, amounts to an insufficient denial. Such averment does

Law Report Legal Articles

RES JUDICATA V ISSUE ESTOPPEL

fredericknkobowo

March 6, 2023

Written by Carrington Omokaro, Esq

ISSUE ESTOPPEL
Illustration

Making reference to a land dispute, Mr. A sues Mr. B in 2012 asking the court to declare him the owner of the land in dispute. Mr B did not counter-claim. The court eventually holds that Mr. A has failed to prove title to land. Mind you, Mr. B did not counterclaim, so the fact that Mr A’s claim was dismissed, does not make him the owner.

What then happens if Mr. A refuses to give up possession ? Should Mr. B take the laws into his hand and kick Mr A out, No !. Should he also wait for Mr. A to file another action, so that he (Mr. B) can raise res judicate…No!
Mr. B can now institute an action against Mr. A to prove his own title and in his statement of claim(i.e Mr. B’s), he will then plead the earlier decision as Issue Estoppel (I.e to establish the fact that Mr. A (Claimant in the previous suit, now defendant in the subsequent suit) is estopped from pleading any fact in his statement of defence towards establishing title. Hence, Mr. A will be estopped from leading evidence as regards title.

2️⃣ RES JUDICATA
It is only used as a defence and when raised, it robs the court of jurisdiction. This is why a Claimant cannot raise Res judicata because he cannot be validly seen to raise a plea that oust the court from entertaining his own suit.
It gives the impression that the claimant in the instant suit had judgment delivered against him or that the claimant’s claim had earlier been dismissed.
Illustration
Using same scenario as stated in the preceding paragraph… If Mr. A had successfully proved title, then Mr. B ought not to be in the land. However, assuming Mr. B decides to institute an action against Mr. A who had earlier gotten judgment in his favour, then Mr. A who will now be the defendant in the subsequent action can raise the defence of RES JUDICATA which operates not only against the party whom it affects(Mr. B), but also against the jurisdiction of the court itself. The party
affected (Mr. B) is estopped per rem judicatam from bringing a fresh claim before the court. At the same time, the Jurisdiction of the court to hear such
claim is ousted.” This is because the court having previously made a pronouncement on that claim between both parties in the previous suit is functus officio

UKAEGBU & ORS vs. UGOJI & ORS (1991) 6 NWLR (Pt. 196) 127

Written by Carrington Omokaro, Esq Making reference to a land dispute, Mr. A sues Mr. B in 2012 asking the court to declare him the owner of the land in dispute. Mr B did not counter-claim. The court eventually holds that Mr. A has failed to prove title to land. Mind you, Mr. B did not counterclaim, so the fact

Law Report

Cases And Principles on Land Litigation in Nigeria

fredericknkobowo

March 4, 2023

Duty of A Claimant in An Action for Declaration of Title to Land

In a civil action where a Claimant seeks a declaration from the Court that title to a piece or parcel of land belongs to him, the law has placed some duties which the Claimant must satisfy if his case is to succeed.

Claimant’s Duty to Show the extent of land claimed

The first duty of any claimant in an action for title to land is to show exactly and precisely a defined and identifiable area to which his claim relates. If the claimant fails on this first hurdle no further questions need arise. His case will stand dismissed.

APPLICABLE CASES;

IYAJI v. EYIGEBE (1987) LPELR-1571(SC)

“…the first duty of any claimant of title to land is to show exactly and precisely a defined and identifiable area to which his claim relates, Akinala Baruwa v. Ogunshola (1938) 4 W.A.C.A. 159. If the claimant fails on this first hurdle no further questions need arise. His case will stand dismissed. Even if, as was observed by the Area Court Grade II Ajaka and apparently approved by the Court of Appeal that:- “the land in dispute is within the land of plaintiff, Ajaka-ate, and within Ikare Anama” (the land of the Defendant). It was still the duty of the plaintiff/claimant to show clearly the precise boundaries separating his holding which he calls Ajaka-ate and the Defendant’s undisputed land known as Ikare Anama. If he fails to do this (as was certainly the case in this appeal) there again he will have his case dismissed by the trial Court and if he appeals an appellate Court is also bound to dismiss his appeal for failure to establish precise boundaries especially on the side in dispute where the lands of the parties are contiguous. Udofia & anor. v. Afia & ors. (1940) 6 W.A.C.A. 216 : Udekwe Amata v. Udogu Modekwe (1954) 14 W.A.C.A. 580 : Vincent Okorie & Ors. v. Philip Udom & Ors. (1900) 5 F.S.C,162.” Per CHUKWUDIFU AKUNNE OPUTA, JSC (Pp 11 – 12 Paras F – E)

UKAEGBU & ORS v. NWOLOLO (2009) LPELR-3337(SC)

“Now, it is firmly settled that normally, the first duty of any claimant of title to land, is to show exactly and precisely, a defined and identifiable area to which the claim relates. So said this court in the case of Musa Iyaji v. Sule Ejigebe (1987) 3 NWLR (pt.61) 523 @ 529; (1987) 7 SCNJ. 148 – per Oputa, JSC, citing the case of Akinola Baruwa v. Ogunshola (1938) 4 WACA 159. That if a claimant fails on the first hurdle, no further question need arise. That his case will stand dismissed. The cases of Udofia & anor. v. Afia & ors. (1940) 6 WACA 216; Udekwe Amata v. Udogu Modekwe (1954) 14 WACA 580 and Vincent Okorie & ors. v. Philip Udom & ors. (1960) 5 FSC. 162 were also referred to.” Per IKECHI FRANCIS OGBUAGU, JSC (Pp 42 – 42 Paras B – F)

ARCHIBONG & ORS v. ITA & ORS (2004) LPELR-535(SC)

“…one of the primary duties of a party who seeks declaration of title to land is to establish the identity of the land. See Agbonifo v. Aiwereoba (1988) 1 NWLR (Pt.70) 325; Baruwa v. Ogunshola (1938) 4 WACA 159 where it was held that where there is a doubt as to identity of the land, it behoves the claimant to file a plan – See also Makanjuola v. Balogun (1989) 3 NWLR (Pt.108) 192.” Per SYLVESTER UMARU ONU, JSC (Pp 42 – 42 Paras C – E)

OKOCHI & ORS v. ANIMKWOI & ORS (2003) LPELR-2455(SC)

“In an action for declaration of title to land, it is the plaintiff’s first duty to prove the area over which he claims with certainty and precision. See Baruwa v. Ogunsola (1938) 4 WACA 159 and Udeze v. Chidebe (1990) 1 NWLR (Pt.125) 141. Where a plaintiff fails to lead satisfactory evidence of boundaries to the land in dispute which he claims, the action must fail. See Aboyeji v. Momoh (1994) 4 NWLR (Pt.341) 646. In an action for declaration of title to land when the boundary is in dispute, the duty of the plaintiff is to prove by evidence the identity of the land he claims. In doing so, he must prove with certainty the boundaries of the land in dispute.” Per NIKI TOBI, JSC (Pp 12 – 12 Paras C – E)

Duty to show how the land was acquired (the mode of acquisition of his title)

AJIBOYE v. ISHOLA (2006) LPELR-301(SC)

“It is however the duty of the plaintiff in an action for declaration of title to land to adduce sufficient and credible evidence to establish the mode of acquisition of his title and the law is that the said plaintiff must succeed on the strength of his own case and not on the weakness of the defence, although the plaintiff may take advantage of the defendant’s evidence where it supports his case – see Onwugbufor v. Okoye (1996) 1 NWLR (Pt.424) 252.” Per WALTER SAMUEL NKANU ONNOGHEN, JSC (Pp 28 – 28 Paras A – B)

OWAKAH v. RSHPDA & ANOR (2022) LPELR-57950(SC)

“The law is settled that to succeed in a case of declaration of title to land, a party must plead and prove the method by which he acquired the said title, ownership of land cannot be claimed by a party without establishing ownership. See FASORO VS BEYIOKU (1988) 2 NWLR (Pt 76) 263, NWOFOR VS NWOSU (1992) 9 NWLR (Pt 264) 229, ONWUGBUFOR V. OKOYE (1996) 1 NWLR (Pt 424) 2521 UNITED BANK FOR AFRICA PLC V. AYINKE (2000) 7 NWLR (Pt 663) 831, OYENEYIN V. AKINKUGBE (2010) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1184) 265. A claimant must satisfy the Court on the following: (a) the precise nature of the title claimed, that is to say, whether it is title by virtue of original ownership, customary grant, conveyance, sale under customary law, long possession, or otherwise; and (b) evidence establishing the nature of the title claimed. See OBAWOLE V. COKER (1994) 5 NWLR (Pt 345) 4161, ADESANYA V. ADERONMU (2000) 9 NWLR (Pt 672) 370 at 3821, EDOHOEKET V. INYANG (2010) 7 NWLR (Pt 1192) 251, OBINECHE VS AKUSOBI (2010) 12 NWLR (Pt 1208) 383.” Per TIJJANI ABUBAKAR, JSC (Pp 20 – 21 Paras D – C)

BIG JOE VENTURES LTD v. IMALELE (2022) LPELR-57989(CA)

“it is the duty of the Plaintiff in an action for declaration of title to land to adduce sufficient and credible evidence to establish the mode of acquisition of his title and the law is that the said Plaintiff must succeed on the strength of his own case and not on the weakness of the defence, although the Plaintiff may take advantage of the Defendant’s evidence where it supports his case. See: Onwugbufor V. Okoye (1996) 1 NWLR (Pt.424) 252; MEMUDU AJIBOYE V. ALHAJI OLOYEDE ISHOLA (2006) LPELR-301(SC).” Per UCHECHUKWU ONYEMENAM, JCA (Pp 9 – 9 Paras A – C)

DIKE & ORS v. OKOLOEDO & ORS (1999) LPELR-946(SC)

SAMUEL v. WAZIRI & ORS (2016) LPELR-40313(CA)

“Therefore in an action for declaration of title to land, what the claimant was required to prove in order to succeed, are: 1. To ascertain the identity of the land to which his claim relates and prove it,2. Second, He must plead and establish the root of his title.As regards the issues of the proof of the identity of the land in question, the Apex Court in Dada V. Dosunmu (2006) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1010) 134 held that: “The plaintiff must first and foremost plead and prove clearly the area of the land to which his claim relates and boundaries thereof and if the location and size of the land is in issue, the Plaintiff must prove the exact location and the area being claimed…” The Supreme Court also held in Gbadamosi V. Dairo (2007) 3 NWLR (Pt. 10250 282, 300 that: “The issue of the identity of the land in an action for declaration of title to land is very fundamental. The Onus is on the Plaintiff seeking the declaration to establish the precise identity of the land he is seeking the declaration. See for example Ezukwu Vs. Ukachukwu (2004) 17 NWLR (Pt. 009) 227; Iordye V. Ihyambe (2000) 15 NWLR (Pt. 692) 675. But where the area of land in dispute is well known to the parties, the question of proof of the identity of the land does not arise. In such a situation it cannot be contended that the area claimed of the land in dispute us certain. See Akinterinwa V. Oladunjoye (2000) 6 NWLR (Pt. 659) 92. It must be emphasized in an action where the Plaintiff claims a declaration of title to land and fails to give exact extent and identity of the land he is claiming. His action should be dismissed. See Rufa v. Rickerts 2 WACA 95 Udofia V. Alfia. See also Arabe V. Asanlu (1980) 5-7 SC 78″ per Musdsdapher, JSC (as he then was).” Per SAIDU TANKO HUSSAINI, JCA (Pp 9 – 11 Paras F – C)

Ways of Proving title to Land

The Locus Classicus case of Idundun v Okumagba (1976) 9-10 SC 227 is noteworthy here. In that case, the Apex Court established that there are five ways of proving or establishing title to land or ownership of land. These five ways have been consistently upheld and repeated in many other cases since Idundun v Okumagba.

OMOTAYO v. CO-OPERATIVE SUPPLY ASSOCIATION (2010) LPELR-2662(SC)

“There are five ways of proving or establishing title to land or ownership of land. These are by- (1)Traditional evidence (2) Production of documents of title duly authenticated in the sense that their due execution must be proved unless they are documents twenty or more years old produce from proper custody. (3) By positive acts of ownership extending over a sufficient length of time. (4) By acts of long possession and enjoyment of the land. (5) By proof of possession of connected or adjacent land in circumstances rendering it probable that the owner of such connected or adjacent land would in addition be the owner of the land in dispute. The establishment of one of the five ways is sufficient proof of ownership. Ayoola v. Odofin (1984) 11 SC 120. Ewo v. Ani (2004) 17 NSCQR 36 Piaro v. Tenalo (1976) 12 SC 31. Idundun v. Okumagba (1976) 9-10 SC 227 Ndukuba v. Izundu (2007) 1 NWLR Pg. 1016 pg. 432. Adanji v. Anwase (2006) 12 NWLR pt. 993 pg. 183. Nkado v. Obiano (1997) 5 NWLR pt. 503 pg 31. Nkwo v. Iboe (1998) 7 NWLR pt 558 pg. 354 Chukwu v. Diala (1999) 6 NWLR pt.608 pg. 674. Inwelegbu v. Ezeani (1999) 12 NWLR pt. 630 pg. 266. Adesanya v. Aderonmu (2000) 6 SC pt.11 pg. 18. Adeosun v. Jibesin (2001) 11 NWLR pt. 724 pg. 290.” Per OLUFUNLOLA OYELOLA ADEKEYE, JSC (Pp 28 – 29 Paras E – D)

EZEANAH v. ATTA (2004) LPELR-1198(SC)

“In a civil claim of title to or ownership of land, for a party to succeed, he must prove his title in one of the five ways laid down in this Court’s decision of Idundun v. Okumagba (1976) 9-10 SC 227 followed by a long line of other decided authorities to the following effect: “1. Proof by traditional evidence. 2. Proof by production of documents of title duly authenticated to prove title. 3. Proof by acts of ownership extending over a sufficient length of time, numerous and positive as to warrant the inference that the person is the true owner. Vide Ekpo v. Ita (1932) 11 NLR 68. 4. Proof by acts of long possession and 5. Proof of possession of connected or adjacent land in circumstances probable that the owner of such connected or adjacent land would in addition be the owner of the land in dispute.” See also Chukwu v. Diala (1999) 6 NWLR (Pt. 608) 674 at 681; Orubon v. Gbondu (1999) 11 NWLR (Pt. 628) 661; Otukpo v. John (2000) 8 NWLR (Pt. 669) 507 at 525; Okechukwu v. Okafor (1961) 1 All NLR 685.” Per SYLVESTER UMARU ONU, JSC (Pp 43 – 44 Paras C – B)

GONIRAM v. SUNDAY (2020) LPELR-51421(CA)

“From the pleadings of the parties, issues were duly joined. While as submitted by the Appellant, it may be technically right to say that the Appellant did not expressly claim title to the land in question in the reliefs set out in her statement of claim, title was decidedly put in issue by the pleadings of the parties. Therefore, in order for the Appellant to prove her entitlement to a declaration of possession and occupation of the land in dispute on the strength of her possession and occupation of the land as claimed, as opposed to the adverse claim of the Respondent who also contended that he owned the land having bought same and was also in possession, the Appellant was obliged to prove her title which entitled her to such possession and occupation of the land. This is settled law. In the case of Regd. Trustees of the Apostolic Faith Mission V James (1987) LPELR-2946(SC) 35-36, E-A, the Supreme Court per Oputa, JSC held as follows – “Since the only issue in this case is – as between the Plaintiffs and the Defendants, who has a better title? – it is necessary to investigate the parties respective roots of title. In any event, since the Plaintiffs claimed damages for trespass and perpetual injunction, they have put their title in issue for their claim to postulate that they are either the owners of the land in dispute or that before the trespass complained of, they were in exclusive possession of the land. The onus of proof was also definitely on the Plaintiffs.” (Emphasis supplied) Therefore, by virtue of the authority of Idundun V Okumagba (1976) 10 SC 277, the locus classicus on the issue, title to land can be proved in one or more of the following five methods: 1. Proof by traditional history or traditional evidence of the history of the land, which includes mode of acquisition of same, for instance, by deforestation of the virgin forest by the first settler, conquest of the original owners through acts of war, gifts, e.t.c. 2. Proof by grant or the production of documents of title to the land. 3. Proof by acts of ownership extending over a sufficient length of time numerous and positive enough to warrant the inference that the persons exercising such acts are the true owners of the land. 4. Proof by acts of long possession. 5. Proof by possession of connected or adjacent land in circumstances rendering it probable that the owner of such land would, in addition, be the owner of the land in dispute. See also Iseogbekun V Adelakun (2012) LPELR-15516(SC) 28-29, G-D, per Mukhtar, JSC; Dakolo V Rewane-Dakolo (2011) LPELR-915(SC) 23-24, E-D, per Rhodes-Vivour, JSC; Odunze V Nwosu (2007) LPELR-2252(SC) 67, C-F, per Onnoghen, JSC. Therefore, in the instant case, the Appellant having put her title in issue by also claiming trespass and injunction, was obliged to prove her title to the land by one of the five ways enumerated above. Indeed, one of the recognized ways of proof of title is by the production of documents of title or a valid instrument of grant. The production and reliance upon such a document of title or instrument of grant inevitably carries with it the need for the Court to inquire into some or all of a number of questions, including: i. Whether the document is genuine and valid; ii. Whether it has been duly executed, stamped and registered; iii. Whether the grantor had the authority and capacity to make the grant; and iv. Whether it has the effect claimed by the holder of the document or instrument. See Romaine V Romaine (1992) LPELR-2953(SC) 15-16, E-B, per Nnaemeka-Agu, JSC; Nwadike V Ibekwe (1987) 4 NWLR (Pt. 67) 718.” Per JUMMAI HANNATU SANKEY, JCA (Pp 10 – 14 Paras D – D)

ADISA v. OYINWOLA & ORS (2000) LPELR-186(SC)

“The several ways in which title in land can be acquired should not be confused with the several ways in which such acquisition can be proved. The much cited case of Idundun & Ors v. Okumagba & ors. (1976) Vol. 10 NSCC 446 deals with ‘five ways in which ownership of land may be proved” and not the ways of acquiring title to land. In short Idundun & ors. v. Okumagba & Ors deals with matters of evidence rather than question of substantive law of acquisition of title. It is for this reason that acquisition of title by gift, grant, or purchase was not mentioned.” Per EMMANUEL OLAYINKA AYOOLA, JSC (Pp 43 – 43 Paras B – D)

Litigation Survey Plans

Position of the Law on a Litigation Survey Plan which is not countered

RAPHAEL & ANOR v. EZI (2014) LPELR-23328(CA)

“The settled legal position remains that a litigation survey plan which is not countered will be taken as accurately reflecting the disputed land. See ADELAJA v. ALADE (1999) 6 NWLR (PT 608) 544 or (1999) LPELR (109) 1 at 17 – 18, ADESANYA v. ADERONMU (2000) 9 NWLR (PT 672) 370 or (2000) LPELR (145) 1 at 24 and OGUN v. AKINYELU (supra).” Per UGOCHUKWU ANTHONY OGAKWU, JCA (Pp 14 – 15 Paras D – A)

AYEMWENRE v. EVBUOMWAN (2019) LPELR-47213(CA)

“The bone of contention therefore is whether it is the same parcel of land now in dispute. For the DW1 and DW2, the land is not the same land sold to the Appellant. But as per the evidence of the PW1, who prepared Exhibit ‘A’, the litigation survey plan, he produced same based on the content of Exhibits ‘B’, ‘E’ and ‘H’ as well as his visit to the land identified to him by the Appellant where he was shown the features on the land. Part of his evidence in Court reads thus: “In the month of December 1990 the plaintiff commissioned me to prepare a litigation survey for him in respect of the land in dispute. I went in his company to the land in dispute which situate at Etete layout road in Ugbor quarters, Benin City. The plaintiff showed me his document of title which included three sets of certificate of transfer, one from Emmanuel Igbinoba for a plot of 250ft by 100ft including an Oba’s approval. These are the documents now shown to me” … The transferors were Emmanuel Igbinoba, Osasu Osunbor and Osasuyi Uwuigbe. The plaintiff showed me round the boundaries of the land and identified the features on the land to me. He also identified his neighbours to the west as one John Idehen, he identified the ward beacons on the land and the various portions transferred by individual transferors, he identified a building on the land, the building blocks, building sand, wall fences all where by the defendant causes of action in this suit. I carried out my survey, produced a plan which I signed. I delivered certified copies to the plaintiff.” Further in his evidence the PW1 emphatically stated that he saw the ward beacons on the boundaries of the land. He also identified the three parcels of land sold to the Appellant by the three vendors which were marked yellow, brown and green respectively in Exhibit “A”. The boundary beacons he saw on the land were said to be marked by beacon Nos. 1333A, 1334A, 1335A, 1217A, 2252A, 2253A, 1216A. The Appellant’s land is said to be defined by beacons Nos. BDS 8682 CP1 – CP9. The evidence as adduced by the PW1 was not challenged or contradicted during cross-examination by the Respondent and the description of the land as given in his evidence is consistent with the content of Exhibit “A”. In other words, Exhibit ‘A’ provided a proper description of the land in dispute and identified same as correctly derived from Exhibits ‘B’, ‘E’ and ‘H’ which are the documents of title tendered in evidence and relied upon by the Appellant in proof of his title to the land. What is more, in the case of MOMOH VS. UMORU (2011) 15 NWLR (PT. 1270) 217 the Supreme Court relying on the earlier authorities of OKPULOKA VS. UME (1976) 9 – 10 SC 269 and OWOTAIRFE VS. ONOKPOSO (1984) 12 SC 19 held that it is the plaintiff’s survey plan that determines the land in dispute and not the defendant’s survey plan where the defendant has not counter claimed. In the instant case, the Respondent incidentally did not counter-claim so Exhibit N cannot upstage Exhibit “A”. Per SAMUEL CHUKWUDUMEBI OSEJI, JCA (Pp 34 – 37 Paras E – C)

OSULA v. INNEH (2015) LPELR-25692(CA)

“A careful reading of the record of appeal would reveal that the hostility between parties is a boundary dispute. The Appellant and the Respondent have a common boundary. The Respondent’s complaint is that the Appellant unlawfully outstripped the boundary into her land and to prove this she engaged the services of a surveyor who produced a litigation survey Plan Exhibit “A”. ?The Appellant on his own side did not prepare a litigation survey to show the status of the land in dispute. He merely denied trespassing into the Respondent’s land. In a similar situation as in this case, in the case of Adeagbo Vs. William (1998) 2 NWLR Part 536 Page 120 at 128 paragraph B Acholonu JCA (as he then was) held among others as follows:- “The Respondent has shown himself to have built a house on the land. He filed a plan of the area in dispute. The Appellant filed none. Therefore he is bound by the plan of the Respondent as he would be deemed to approve of it regardless of his denial. Mere ipse dixit of the Appellant without a plan should be discountenanced.” The Learned trial Judge applied the principle enunciated when he held as follows at page 75 of the record thus:-“After a calm and cool consideration of the entire evidence adduced by the parties and weighing the evidence of the Plaintiff and her witnesses vis-à-vis that of the Defendant I must say straightaway that I believe the candid and compelling evidence of the PW1, the registered surveyor that the present dimension of the Defendant’s land as depicted in Exhibit “A” verged “Green” is 100 feet x 131 feet. I also believe his credible evidence that the portion of the Plaintiff’s parcel of land trespassed into by the Defendant is 31 feet by 100 feet verged “yellow” in Exhibit “A”. At page 76 of the record of Appeal, the Learned trial Judge stated further:- “Additionally, it is my view that the defendant having failed to file a survey plan in rebuttal of the Plaintiff’s survey plan is deemed to have approved of the Plaintiff’s as to the boundaries at the land in dispute…” Finally on page 77 of the record of appeal the learned trial Judge held as follows:- “In the final result having weighed the evidence adduced by the Plaintiff in support of her claim including her witnesses and the documentary evidence tendered and placed side by side the evidence of the Defence on the imaginary scale of Justice, I prefer the case of the Plaintiff to that of the Defendant … I am satisfied that the Plaintiff has successfully proved her claim on the balance of probability as required by Law.” ?A careful review of the finding of the Learned trial Judge would show that the evaluation of evidence was done in compliance with the principle of evaluation as enunciated by the Apex Court in Mogaji vs. Odofin (Supra). In view of the foregoing, I therefore have no difficulty in coming to the conclusion that the Learned trial Judge’s appraisal of evidence adduced at the trial cannot be faulted.” Per JIMI OLUKAYODE BADA, JCA (Pp 11 – 14 Paras D – A)

How to put the identity/survey plan of a disputed land in issue

EKARIKO v. ATSENUWA (2022) LPELR-58448(CA)

“I cannot see where the appellant put the identity of the land in issue. It is immaterial that both sides used different units of measurements. There is no dispute about the location of the land, the area, the size or features of the land pleaded by the respondent. There is no issue raised about the survey plan of the respondent. The law as I have already stated is that to make a plaintiff’s survey plan an issue, the defendant should be clear and specific on the parts in controversy-is it the area, size, location, boundaries or locus in quibus of acts of possession? See Osuji v. Ogualaji (2002) 16 NWLR (Pt. 792) 136, 152. The case of Adenle v. Olude (2003) supra does not support the case of the appellant as the Supreme Court re-stated the position of the law as to how the identity of land in dispute in a case where there is a litigation survey plan is put in issue. The apex Court found that, just as in this case, the appellant did not put the identity of the land in dispute in issue.” Per JOSEPH EYO EKANEM, JCA (Pp 12 – 12 Paras A – E)

Offodile vs. Offodile & Ors (2019) LPELR-4785 (SC),

“The 2 Courts below by Exhibit A held that the boundary and delineations of the land in dispute were not proved with certainty by the Appellant to give him title to the land in dispute. The identity of land in dispute will be in issue, if the Defendants in their Statement of Defence made it one, that is, if they disputed specifically either the area or the size or the location or the features shown on the Plaintiff’s’ plan. When such is the case, then the identity of the land becomes an issue. We have in our Courts almost tacitly accepted that it is a ritual in land cases for the Plaintiff to prove the features on the land. Where therefore the identity of the land is not an issue, the mere production of the Plaintiffs’ plan is enough to establish the identity of the land. In fact, in such cases, the plan can and should be tendered by consent. See Per TABAI, J.S.C in ANYANWU & ORS V. UZOWUAKA & ORS (2009) LPELR-515(SC

Anyanwu & Ors vs. Uzowuaka & Ors (2009) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1159) 445,

“In NWOBODO EZEUDU & ORS v. ISAAC OBIAGWU (1986) 2 NWLR (Part 21) 208 at 220 this Court, Per Oputa JSC, spoke of the circumstances when an issue of identity of land can appropriately be said to be raised. The Court said: “The identity of land in dispute will be in issue, if and only if, the Defendants in their Statement of Defence made it one – that is if they disputed specifically either the area or the size or the location or the features shown on the Plaintiffs’ plan. When such is the case then the identity of the land becomes an issue. We have in our Courts almost tacitly accepted that it is a ritual in land cases for the Plaintiff to prove the features on the boundary and call all boundary men before it can be held that he has established the identity of the land in dispute. This erroneous belief accounts for a good deal of delays in land cases. the onus on the Plaintiff is an onus to prove an issue. Where therefore the identity of the land is not an issue, there I will make bold to say that the mere production of the Plaintiff’s plan is enough to establish the identity of the land. In fact in such cases the plan can and should be tendered by consent.”

When will a Litigation Survey Plan be required/not required in an action?

KPEKU & ORS v. SIBEKENEKUMU & ORS (2013) LPELR-20703(CA)

“… the law is that where both parties know the land in dispute, a survey or litigation plan is not necessary. See Sadiku Osho v. Michael Ape (1998) 6 SCNJ 139 at 142.” Per HELEN MORONKEJI OGUNWUMIJU, JCA (Pp 18 – 18 Paras B – C)

OLISA & ORS v. OBIORAH & ORS (2014) LPELR-24523(CA)

“Even though the filing of a litigation survey plan is not an indispensible essential in a claim for land, survey plans are usually filed to delineate the boundaries of the land which plan must agree with the evidence of the party such that there is certainty as to the area of land claimed: ONISESE v. OYELEYE (2008) 21 WRN 43 at 78. It however remains good law that a survey plan is not a desideratum if the identity of the land in dispute is clear and not in dispute: ADEDEJI v. OLOSO (2007) 5 NWLR (PT.1026) 133 and AREMU v. ADETORO (2007) 16 NWLR (PT.1060) 244 at 262.” Per UGOCHUKWU ANTHONY OGAKWU, JCA (Pp 32 – 33 Paras D – A)

OMORUYI v. OBANOR (2011) LPELR-4349(CA)

“A survey or litigation plan may not in all circumstance be necessary that is where the land in dispute can be ascertained and known to both parties. The parties in this case would not have identified the land in dispute without a survey plan. See OMIYALE V. MACAULAY 2009 3 NWLR 345 SC. The trial Judge was therefore right when he said I quote – “I am satisfied and I find that the area verged Red in Exhibit 5 is the same as the area verged Pink in Exhibit 6. In other words the parties are disputing over one and the same parcel of land.” Per GEORGE OLADEINDE SHOREMI, JCA (Pp 13 – 13 Paras B – E)

AKHIGBE v. AIGBEZE (2017) LPELR-45656(CA)

“It is the law that where the identity of the land in dispute is known to the parties, there would be no need to file a litigation survey plan, but where the description of the land, location and dimension as given by the parties do not tally then, the identity and extent of the land are in issue, a survey plan would be necessary to clear doubts as to the land the claimant has alleged has been trespassed unto. In the case of OGEDENGBE & ORS VS. BALOGUN (2007) 9 NWLR (PT. 1039) 380; (2007) 3 SC (PT. 11) 71, the Apex Court held that as a matter of fact and this is also settled, where the identity of the land in dispute, is known to the parties and not in dispute, no plan is necessary, the absence of a plan is not fatal to the plaintiff’s claim if there is proper description of the land made available in the proceedings. See also EGBUTA & ANOR VS. ELEKWACHI & ANOR (2013) LPELR – 20666 (CA). The contrary is the position where there is no proper description of the land over which title is claimed and no litigation survey plan is produced. See also MUEME VS. GAJI (2001) 2 NWLR (PT. 697) 289, CHIEF DANIEL ALLISON IBULUYA and ORS VS. TAM BEBEBO DIKKO and ORS (1976) 6 SC 97 at 107 and CHIEF SOKPUI VS. CHIEF AGBOZO (1951) 13 WACA 241 at 242. A survey plan is used for the purpose of giving an accurate and precise description of the land claimed with scientific or mathematical precision. It is the law that, it is the duty of every claimant of title to land, as in this case, to adduce evidence showing the clear identity, boundary and other features of the land he claims. This duty or burden can be discharged by evidence of the description, boundary area and other features of the said land in dispute. Therefore, it is for the purpose of more accuracy or precision in identifying the land with mathematical accuracy or in a scientific manner that necessitates the use of a survey plan. Further, where the party claims the ownership of a larger or vast expanse of land including the land in dispute, or the land in dispute is part of a large portion as in the present case, a composite plan is filed to show the vast land as well as the portion in dispute, verged in a different or specific colour. Alternatively, the identification of the land could be proved by other evidence, mostly oral. In this appeal there is a dispute as to the identity, extent or area of the land in dispute where the appellant has made out that the respondent does not even know the land he claimed title for in the trial Court. In this situation, the identification by either oral evidence or survey plan (documentary) would be required. That way, it could be said precisely, yes, this portion of land is the land the claimant claimed title of without doubt and that it is the same land as described and identified by the appellant. That way, the Court would be in a position to determine whether the parties are at one with the dispute over the same portion of land in terms of location and extent. See SUNDAY DANIEL OBICHIE VS. JOHN A. ADETONA (2008) LPELR 8472 (CA), EZUKWU VS. UKACHUKWU (2004) 17 NWLR (PT. 902) 227 at 249; OTAMA VS. YOUDUBAGHA (2006) 2 NWLR (PT. 337) and OLADIMEJI VS. OSHODI (1968) 1 ALL NLR 47. In the respondent’s claim, he gave the dimension of the land over which he laid claim. In paragraphs 4, 5 and 11 of his written statement (evidence) on oath and as PW1 he similarly gave the measurement of the land and gave the location as situate at Obe Village particularly at Mechanic Road as in his claim. Similarly, the evidence of the PW 2 and PW 3. Can it then be rightly said that the claimant pleaded and gave evidence as to the location and extent of the land allegedly trespassed on with mathematical accuracy? How does one identify the particular portion in dispute at the Mechanic Road in Obe Village, surely there must be several portions of land on that road and in that Village mentioned above, moreso, where it has been challenged by the respondent. In this case, a litigation survey plan was necessary which would assist oral evidence in identifying the land over which the claimant claimed title and allegedly trespassed upon by the appellant.” Per CHIDI NWAOMA UWA, JCA (Pp 11 – 15 Paras F – C)

Composite Survey Plans

KASALI & ORS v. SANNI & ORS (2017) LPELR-51065(CA)

A composite plan as the name implies is usually drawn by the super imposition of at least two plans filed and or tendered by opposing parties. It is where the two sides file plans which do not match that it becomes the duty of the plaintiff to file a composite plan to show the relative positions of the area of land claimed by both himself and the defendant. See Bankole V Pelu (1991) 8 NWLR (Pt 211) 523, 550 and Bankole V Dada (2003) 11 NWLR (Pt 830) 174, 224. There may also be situations in which a defendant needs to file a composite plan as was held by the Supreme Court in Elias V Suleiman (1973) 12 SC 113. A composite plan is also useful in linking a piece of land presently in dispute with a piece of land that was the subject of litigation in a previous suit as was done in Obineche V Akusobi (2010) All FWLR (Pt 533) 1839, 1859. It may also be deployed where the original title documents failed to fully prescribe the parcels of land allegedly allocated to the disputants – Eholor V Osayande (1992) 6 NWLR (Pt 249) 524, 536.” Per JOSEPH EYO EKANEM, JCA (Pp 25 – 26 Paras F – E)

ONI & ORS v. OMOFADE (2016) LPELR-50053(CA)

“On the other hand, as the respondent set up his own case that the disputed parcel of land is the same as the parcel of land litigated in suit No.ID/479/89, he had the onus to prove the assertion. For it is elementary that he who asserts must prove. Therefore the respondent had the burden to produce in evidence a composite plan showing the parcel of land in dispute in suit No.ID/479/89 is the same as the parcel of land in dispute in suit No.ID/10/2010 vide Elias v. Suleimon (1973) A.N.L.R. 217 at 928 thus- “In view of this and his later observation that he had not the necessary composite plan before him (which is clearly the duty of the defendants/respondents to provide), it is quite clear that the 3rd defendant/respondent had also failed to prove conclusively that the land bought by him and in support of which he had produced the purchase receipts (Exs. 21 and 22), formed part of the land claimed by the plaintiff/appellant.” Per JOSEPH SHAGBAOR IKYEGH, JCA (Pp 16 – 17 Paras E – C)

Duty of A Claimant in An Action for Declaration of Title to Land In a civil action where a Claimant seeks a declaration from the Court that title to a piece or parcel of land belongs to him, the law has placed some duties which the Claimant must satisfy if his case is to succeed. Claimant’s Duty to Show the

Guest Post

The 2023 General Elections And The Words Of Fatayi-Williams CJN in AWOLOWO V SHAGARI (1979).

fredericknkobowo

March 3, 2023

INTRODUCTION

Right from 2020 most Nigerian voters expected the wider use of the electronic voting system by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) in 2023. This public choice was influenced by the need to reduce or possibly eliminate irregularities that have come to characterize the election process in Nigeria. The Electoral Act, 2022 is the product of this agitation.

Automation of election process reduces direct human influence and provides an opportunity to solve old electoral problems. Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) by its own processes and procedures deal with four components of Electronic Voting System (EVS): Electronic Voter Register (EVR), Electronic Voting Machine (EVM), Electronic Voter Authentication (EVA), Electronic Transmission of Results (ETR), Automatic Fingerprints Identification System (AFIS) and Smart Card Reader (SCR).

Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) now adopts the use of electronic voting (e-voting) and electronic transmission of election results to a single portal. Subject to Section 51 of the Electoral Act, 2022, the result of an election will be substantially affected where it is observed that there was over voting. By the provisions of Section 73(2) of the Electoral Act, 2022 the non-recording of sensitive and non-sensitive electoral materials will make an election invalid.

The Electoral Act, 2022 has set strict punitive measures for offenders. Section 73(3) of the Electoral Act, 2022 provides that a Presiding officer who intentionally announces or signs an election result in violation of subsection (2) is liable on conviction to a fine of N10,000,000 or imprisonment for a term of at least one year or both. Section 120(4) of the Electoral Act, 2022 punishes any person who announces or publishes an election result knowing same to be false or which is at variance with the signed Certificate of return. It makes him liable on conviction to imprisonment for a term of 36 months. Section 120(5) of the Act provides that any returning officer or collation officer who delivers or causes to be delivered a false certificate of return knowing same to be false is liable on conviction to imprisonment for a maximum term of three years without an option of fine. In the same fashion, Section 120(6) provides that any person who delivers or causes to be delivered a false Certificate of return knowing same to be false to any news media is liable on conviction to imprisonment for a term of three years.

CASE SUMMARY: AWOLOWO v. SHAGARI & ORS

FACTS:

An appeal requesting to nullify the 1979 election conducted by the Federal Electoral Commission. This matter was first heard at the Presidential election tribunal in Lagos. Obafemi Awolowo alleging that as far as the records show, no candidate scored not less than 25% of the votes cast in 13 States. The 3^rd respondent declared 1^st respondent as having won the Presidential election. Obafemi Awolowo disagrees with the result declared on the election. Obafemi Awolowo wants the election declared void and that the Federal Electoral Commission should hold the election, which should have followed on the failure of all the candidates to win at the first ballot.

Shehu Shagari is a member of National Party of Nigeria. Shehu Shagari scored 5,688,857, he also scored at least 25% of votes cast in each of the twelve States namely, Bauchi, Bendel, Benue, Borno, Cross River, Gongola, Kaduna, Kwara, Niger, Plateau, Rivers and Sokoto and in the thirteenth State – Kano, he scored 19.94%. Obafemi Awolowo scored 4,916,651, in total.

ISSUE:

The correct interpretation of Section 34A(1)c)(ii) of the Electoral (Amendment) Decree No. 32 of 1979.

HOLDING:

The appeal was dismissed and cost was awarded on the ground that Shagari was lawfully declared the winner, and that he satisfied the requirements of Section 34A(1)(c(i) of the said Decree. Also, that even if he didn’t get up to more than one third in the 13^th State, Section 111 & Section 110 of the Decree would have come to his aid and that judgement would have still be given to him.

Kayode Eso dissented.

NOTABLE DICTA:

“Moreover, until election returns can be computerised in this country, the “mathematical canon of interpretation” put forward by Professor Awojobi (1^st petitioner’s witness) in his testimony before the Tribunal will remain impractical and legally unacceptable.” – Per Fatayi-Williams, CJN.

RELEVANCE OF DICTA PER FATAYI-WILLIAMS, CJN

Digital technologies to improve the reliability of election results has become more widely used around the world in the past two decades. They include; biometric voter registration, smart card readers, voters’ cards, optical mark recognition, direct electronic recording, and electronic result transmission. The principal reason for using them is to contain electoral fraud. It also promotes the credibility of elections.

Technology has drastically reduced incidences of electoral malpractices such as; ballot stuffing, result sheet mutilation, manipulations, over voting, alteration of result sheets and hijacking of ballot boxes in the history of Nigeria elections. The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) with empowerment from the Electoral Act, 2022 has employed a number of innovative approaches to improve the management and conduct of elections in the country.

Electronic Registration of Election Results: Section 62(2) of the Electoral Act, 2022 provides Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) with powers to compile, maintain and update, on a continuous basis, a register of election results to be known as the National Electronic Register of Election Results. It is a distinct database or repository of polling unit by polling unit results, including collated election results, of each election conducted by the Commission in the Federation. The Register of Election Results is to be kept in electronic format by the Commission at its national headquarters.

Computer Generated Evidence: Section 62(3) of the Electoral Act, 2022 allows for any person or political party to obtain from Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), on payment of such fees as may be determined by the Commission, a certified true copy of any election result kept in the National Electronic Register of Election Results for a State, Local government, Area council, registration area or Electoral ward or Polling unit, as the case may be, and the certified true copy may be in printed or electronic format.

Definition of Return: Section 152 of the Electoral Act, 2022 provides for the meaning of return. It means the declaration by a returning officer of a candidate in an election as being the winner of that election.

Re-election: Section 47 of the Electoral Act, 2022 doesn’t only provide for the use of smart card readers or other technological device as may be prescribed by Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) but in subsection (3) states expressly that where a smart card reader or any other technological device deployed for accreditation of voters fails to function in any unit and a fresh card reader or technological device is not deployed, the election in that unit shall be cancelled and another election shall be scheduled within 24 hours if the Commission is satisfied that the result of the election in that polling unit will substantially affect the final result of the whole election and declaration of a winner in the constituency concerned. This process was absent in 1979.

Transmission of Election Results: Section 50 of the Electoral Act, 2022 provides for voting and transmission of results at an election subject to Section 63 of the Act.

Disputes: Section 64(6) of the Electoral Act, 2022 provides that where during collation of results, there is a dispute regarding a collated result or the result of an election from any polling unit, the collation officer or returning officer shall determine the correctness of the disputed result based on:

the original of the disputed collated result for each polling unit where the election is disputed;
1. the smart card reader or other technology device used for accreditation of voters in each polling unit where the election is disputed;
1. data of accreditation recorded and transmitted directly from each polling unit where the election is disputed as prescribed under section 47(2) of the Act;
1. the votes and result of the election recorded and transmitted directly from each polling unit where the election is disputed, as prescribed under section 60(4) of the Act.

Electronic Posting of Results: Section 68 of the Electoral Act, 2022 allows for Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to post on its notice board and website a notice showing the candidates at the election and their scores and the person declared as elected or returned at the election.

Petition: Section 15 First schedule of the Electoral Act, 2022 provides that when a petitioner claims the seat alleging that he had the highest number of valid votes cast at the election, the party defending the selection or return at the election shall set out clearly in his reply particulars of the votes, if any, which he objects to and the reasons for his objection against such votes, showing how he intends to prove at the hearing that the petitioner is not entitled to succeed.

Election: Section 28(1)(2) and (3) First schedule of the Electoral Act, 2022 provides that at the conclusion of a hearing, the Tribunal shall determine whether a person whose election or return is complained of or any other person, and what person, was validly returned or elected, or whether the election was void, and shall certify the determination to the Resident Electoral Commissioner or the Commission. If the Tribunal or Court has determined that the election is invalid, then, subject to Section 134 of the Act, where there is an appeal and the appeal fails, a new election shall be held by the Commission. Where a new election is to be held, Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) shall appoint a date for the election which shall not be later than three months from the date of the determination.

Certain defects not to Invalidate Election: Section 135(1) and (3) read together gives an understanding that an election shall not be liable to be invalidated by reason of non-compliance with the provisions of the Act if it appears to the Election tribunal or Court that the election was conducted substantially in accordance with the principles of the Act and that the non-compliance did not affect substantially the result of the election. Furthermore, no election shall be questioned or cancelled by reason that there is a mistake, conflict or inconsistency in the date contained in the result of such election signed by a returning officer or any other officer of the Commission.

Postponement of Election in Emergency: By virtue of Section 24 of the Electoral Act, 2022, where the Commission appoints a substituted date in accordance with subsections (2) and (3), there shall be no return for the election until polling has taken place in the area or areas affected. Notwithstanding subsection (3), the Commission may, if satisfied that the result of the election will not be affected by voting in the area or areas in respect of which substituted dates have been appointed, direct that a return of the election be made.

Nullification of Election: Section 136(1)(3) provides powers to a Tribunal court to declare as elected the candidate who scored the highest number of valid votes cast at an election and satisfied the requirements of the Constitution and the Act. This takes effect where the candidate who was returned as elected was not validly elected on the ground that he did not score the majority of valid votes cast at the election.

CONCLUSION

Over time, the country has ossified into a two-party system. The competition in 1979 was more intense than in recent time. All the five parties that contested in 1979 pulled their weight. The votes were evenly spread, ranging from 33.77% for the party with the highest votes to 10.01% for the party with the least votes. The 2023 presidential election will be the most competitive multiparty poll since 1979. With the new Electoral Act, the 2023 General elections will be a radical departure from the pattern set by the seven elections held between 1979 and 2019.

Written By Abasiodiong Ekarika

REFERENCES

Hbriefs, “Case summary of Obafemi Awolowo v. Shehu Shagari (1979).”
Electoral Act, 2022.
Premium Times, April 29, 2022, “Technology, E-voting and Credible Elections in Nigeria.”
This Day Live, July 17, 1992, “Echoes of the 1979 Presidential Poll.”

INTRODUCTION Right from 2020 most Nigerian voters expected the wider use of the electronic voting system by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) in 2023. This public choice was influenced by the need to reduce or possibly eliminate irregularities that have come to characterize the election process in Nigeria. The Electoral Act, 2022 is the product of this agitation. Automation

Jobs

Union Bank Graduate Trainee Program

fredericknkobowo

December 24, 2022

The Union Bank Graduate Trainee Programme is now live!

This program provides aspiring professionals like you with a one-of-a-kind opportunity to gain valuable workplace skills and experience.

Available pathways:

Sales academy
Tech bootcamp
General management trainee

Requirements:

Minimum of BSc (2nd class lower) or HND (lower class) in any discipline
NYSC discharge certificate or exemption letter
Candidates must not be more than 27 years old by April 2023
No previous work experience required

Qualification in computer-related disciplines or any IT certification is required for Tech Bootcamp applicants

Ready to start this exciting journey?

Visit the link below to apply now!

APPLY HERE

The Union Bank Graduate Trainee Programme is now live! This program provides aspiring professionals like you with a one-of-a-kind opportunity to gain valuable workplace skills and experience. Available pathways: Requirements: Qualification in computer-related disciplines or any IT certification is required for Tech Bootcamp applicants Ready to start this exciting journey? Visit the link below to apply now!

Making Money Online

6 Simple Steps to Starting Your Affiliate Marketing Business

fredericknkobowo

December 24, 2022

What is Affiliate Marketing?

Affiliate marketing is a business model in which an individual (the affiliate) promotes products or services on behalf of a company and earns a commission for each sale made as a result of their promotion.

Affiliate marketing is a process where publishers earn a commission by promoting a product or service made by another retailer or advertiser using an affiliate link. The affiliate partner is rewarded a payout for providing a specific result to the retailer or advertiser.

Typically, the result is a sale. But some affiliate marketing programs can reward you for leads, free-trial users, clicks to a website, or getting downloads for an app.

Most affiliate programs are usually free to join, so you don’t have to worry about high startup costs. Done right, an effective affiliate marketing strategy can go from side hustle to profitable online business idea by netting you a healthy income.
Source: Shopify.

How to Start Your Affiliate Marketing Business

Here are some steps you can follow to start an affiliate marketing business and make a profit:

Choose a niche: Select a product category or topic that you are interested in and that has a clear target market. This will help you to focus your efforts and create content that resonates with your audience.
Research and select affiliate programs: Look for companies that offer affiliate programs in your chosen niche. Research the terms and conditions of each program to find one that offers a good commission rate and a range of products or services that align with your interests.
Create a website or social media presence: Establish a platform where you can promote your affiliate products and link to them. This could be a website, a blog, or social media accounts.
Build an audience: Use your platform to create content and engage with your audience. This could include blog posts, social media posts, and newsletters. The goal is to build a loyal following of people who are interested in your niche and who are likely to make a purchase based on your recommendations.
Promote affiliate products: Once you have built an audience, you can start promoting affiliate products to them. Use your platform to share information about the products, and include your affiliate link in your posts and on your website.
Track your progress: Use tools like Google Analytics to track the traffic to your website and the sales you generate through your affiliate links. This will help you to see what is working and what is not, and make adjustments to your strategy as needed.
By following these steps, you can start an affiliate marketing business and make a profit by promoting products or services that align with your interests and expertise. Remember, it can take time to build an audience and generate sales, so be patient and consistent in your efforts.

To get a complete and detailed training on Affiliate marketing, check out this program.

Written by Nelly Murray

What is Affiliate Marketing? Affiliate marketing is a business model in which an individual (the affiliate) promotes products or services on behalf of a company and earns a commission for each sale made as a result of their promotion. Affiliate marketing is a process where publishers earn a commission by promoting a product or service made by another retailer or

Business Loans, Grants and Tips

7 Simple Steps to Writing Your Next Business Plan

fredericknkobowo

December 24, 2022

What is a Business Plan?

A business plan is a document that outlines the goals and objectives of a business, as well as the strategies and actions that will be taken to achieve them. It serves as a roadmap for the business, providing a clear direction for decision-making and helping to ensure that all members of the team are working towards the same goals.

A business plan is a written tool about your business that projects 3-5 years ahead and outlines the path your business intends to take to make money and grow revenue. Think of it as a living project for your business, and not as a one-time document.
U.S. Small Business Administration

Why do you need a Business Plan?

There are several reasons why a business plan is important:

It helps to clarify the business’s goals and objectives, and provides a framework for achieving them.
It can be used to attract investors and secure funding, as it provides a detailed overview of the business and its financial projections.
It helps to identify potential risks and challenges, and outlines strategies for addressing them.
It can be used to measure the progress of the business and make adjustments as needed.
It can serve as a communication tool, helping to align all team members around the business’s goals and strategies.

Overall, a business plan is an essential tool for any business, as it helps to ensure that the business is focused, organized, and on track to achieve its goals.

7 Simple Steps to write a Business Plan for Any Business

Define your business: Start by outlining the basics of your business, including the products or services you offer, your target market, and your unique selling proposition.
Set clear goals and objectives: Identify the specific goals and objectives you want to achieve with your business, and outline the steps you will take to get there.
Develop a marketing plan: Determine how you will reach and engage your target market, including the marketing channels you will use and the tactics you will employ.
Outline your financial plan: Establish your financial projections, including projected income, expenses, and profitability.
Create an organizational plan: Describe the structure of your business, including the roles and responsibilities of team members and any partnerships or collaborations.
Detail your operations plan: Outline the processes and systems you will use to manage and operate your business on a day-to-day basis.
Review and revise your plan: As your business grows and changes, it’s important to regularly review and update your business plan to ensure it remains relevant and effective.

Writing a business plan can be a daunting task, but it is an important step in the process of starting and growing a successful business. By following these steps, you can create a detailed and comprehensive plan that will help guide your business towards success.

Written by Andres Ferreira

What is a Business Plan? A business plan is a document that outlines the goals and objectives of a business, as well as the strategies and actions that will be taken to achieve them. It serves as a roadmap for the business, providing a clear direction for decision-making and helping to ensure that all members of the team are working

Guest Post Law Central

REGISTRATION AND PROTECTION OF DOMAIN NAMES AND BUSINESS ENTITIES NAMES AS TRADEMARKS IN NIGERIA

fredericknkobowo

December 22, 2022

ABSTRACT

In this 21^st century, the world is evolving at a very fast pace, domain names and business entities names are the most valuable assets for almost every sphere ranging from marketing, sales, and customer services. The business entity name is very essential to any company or business, it identifies your business, and thus protecting it should go beyond registering the name with Corporate Affairs Commission (CAC) (hereinafter referred to as CAC). Although registering a business entity name with CAC, is an integral part for Start-up Company or business, to prohibit the registration of the same name by another business or company, trademark is essential, as it guarantees the absolute protection any entrepreneur would desire for his business. Domain names have become an integral part of every business carrying out any online commercial activity; it is an indispensable tool used by business owners to reach out to their existing and incoming clients globally. Today domain names are not just the names of the websites of different entities, but also act as business identifiers that play a significant role in the promotion of business entities. This article seeks to discuss how trademarks can be used to protect business entities’ names and domain names.

Written by Emem Ekott ESQ

Click to Download the Article

ABSTRACT In this 21st century, the world is evolving at a very fast pace, domain names and business entities names are the most valuable assets for almost every sphere ranging from marketing, sales, and customer services. The business entity name is very essential to any company or business, it identifies your business, and thus protecting it should go beyond registering

Learned Scribbles

LAW APPRENCTICESHIP 101: Titbits On Cross Examination

fredericknkobowo

October 18, 2022

So, have you ever been given a file and told to prepare cross examination questions? Let’s even go a step further. Have you ever been asked to cross examine an adverse party’s witness? If yes, what informed your choice of questions? Or did you just go ahead to ask questions because of course, in cross examination the sky is your limit? LOL!!!!

Walk with me as we find out what should be on your mind when you set out to draft cross examination questions or conduct cross examination.

Before you begin to draft questions for purpose of conducting cross examination, you should have a purpose. Yes, you should have a purpose for the cross examination of a witness. Ask yourself: what do I want to achieve with the cross examination of this particular witness? I assume that at the point of asking this question, you would have had the facts of your case at your fingertips.

It is important to have a purpose for your cross examination. That’ll inform your choice of questions. For instance, if your purpose for cross examining a particular witness is to discredit that witness so that the court believes less of his/her testimony, then you’ll do well to ask questions that will get the witness to contradict himself/herself. If your purpose is to put forward the case of your client through the cross examination of the witness on the other side, then you’ll need to ask questions that’ll aid the achievement of that.

By the way, you don’t have to wait for the testimony of your witness to put forward the case of your client. As a defendant, you can start putting forward your client’s case through the Claimant’s witness. How do you do that? It’s simple. By asking the Claimant’s witness relevant questions that support the case of your client. Under cross examination, you can get the witness to confirm salient facts of your case. The trick is to ask questions relevant to your case, and to which you know the answers.

Another point to note: mind how you couch/frame your questions. This is to ensure that you elicit desirable answers.

Take this scenario for instance: A witness in his evidence-in-chief states that he has been making payments into an account for the purpose of repaying a loan facility. Then, he goes on to say that the payments made so far have not reflected in the loan account. He then says that he had requested for the statement of account from the Bank but alleges that the Bank refused to issue same to him.

If I’m to cross examine him on the basis of this testimony, what will my purpose be? Well, my purpose would be to discredit him so that the court doesn’t believe his testimony. I’ll do that by asking him this one question (that’s after I’ve laid the foundation with his testimony) to make him contradict himself. Here’s the question:

Q: Witness, you don’t have access to the loan account.

Now, if the witness answers that he doesn’t have access to the account, he would be lying because he cannot claim not to have access to the account and yet know that the payments made are not reflected in the account. That’ll form your argument in your final written address.

On a final note, I’ll say that cross examination is an art. We weren’t taught this art in Law School. But one can always develop the art. A good place to begin is to seek guidance from experienced litigators.

Written by Queen Charles Ukpo ESQ

Hello there!!! In the previous piece I had said that I’ll return soon with another piece, but I delayed. For that, I offer my apologies and have come with a token of appeasement. I hope it meets the purpose. So, have you ever been given a file and told to prepare cross examination questions? Let’s even go a step further.

Learned Scribbles

God Forbid that a Lawyer knows all the Law

fredericknkobowo

October 18, 2022

I believe God to be all wise. No wonder She necessarily forbids somethings. One abomination in particular stands out for the lawyer – he shouldn’t know all the law. Like I said, God forbids it. Yes, she does. How do I know? Lord Denning the veritable high priest of law said it, who am I to disbelieve him?

But isn’t it almost blasphemous to say that a lawyer shouldn’t know all the law? Think it through; it arguably does sound blasphemous. However, I have only emphasized a part of Lord Denning’s statement. The remainder is – he should know where to find it.

Put both together and the entire statement reads – God forbid that a Lawyer knows all the law, but he should know where to find it.

God’s forbidding as communicated to us by Lord Denning is rather instructive. This writer has found it relevant in many aspects of litigation practice and legal practice in general. Hence this piece.

While prosecuting or defending an action in court, I have oft found out that before concluding on the hopelessness of an intended course of action or argument in any case or even the likelihood of success in a case, it is wise to keep in tune with the face of the law on the subject matter. To put that differently, a periodic review of the facts of a case in the light of the changing face of the law, could make the day of judgment rather euphoric. So, while looking at the case as it progresses to the final address stage, it would be important to keep asking; are judicial outcomes (case law) on similar set of facts changing?

Let me say all you have just read more elaborately;

A recent Court of Appeal or better still a Supreme Court authority that departs from the previous stream of judicial decisions could be a formidable addition to any Lawyer’s available arsenal for a client’s case. And this piece of weaponry could come in the nick of time.

Let me give an example. A while ago, we knew the judgment Debtor to be a meddlesome interloper. The Courts confirmed this. He could only stare during garnishee proceedings. Even if he sneezed, that sound would be inaudible to the Court. Thus, where he filed a motion which the Court called it absurd; U.B.A Plc v Ekanem (2010)

But the Courts have now removed the invisibility cloak from the Judgment Debtor. Now, he can be seen, heard and even do what was previously considered absurd at the Court registry – he can file processes. The law has now chosen to hear his sneezes and agitations during the course of the garnishee proceedings.

We can find yet another example in garnishee proceedings still. Let’s raise the bone of contention as an issue. The issue is – can garnishee proceedings continue even with a pending motion for stay of execution in respect of the same judgment sought to be enforced by the garnishee proceedings? Put differently, should garnishee proceedings continue when a motion for stay of execution is pending? Doesn’t the court lose all vires 0r jurisdiction to continue hearing garnishee proceedings when a motion for stay of execution predates the initiation of the garnishee proceedings?

A stream of judicial authorities maintain that the pendency of a motion for stay of execution automatically delves a suffocating blow to the possibility of garnishee proceedings continuing before the Court. Put differently, a party cannot execute a judgment by way of garnishee proceedings where there is a pending application for stay of execution. The cases of F.I.B Plc v Effiong (2010) 16 NWLR Pt 1218 P 199, Nigerian Breweries Ltd v Dumuje (2016) 8 NWLR (Pt 1515) Pt 1515 P 536 support this position.

There are authorities to the contrary of this position as well. The contrary authorities are; KEDO Plc v Sintilawa (2021) LPELR-56707(CA), I.B.W.A. Ltd v Pavex Int Co Ltd (2000) 7 NWLR (Pt 663) P 105, Purification Tech. (Nig) Ltd v A.G. Lagos State (2004) 9 NWLR (Pt 879) 665.

Moving away from garnishee proceedings, another example comes to mind as well. It is in relation to witness depositions on oath as they are called and widely used in High Courts across the Country. There is the often-innocuous question asked under cross examination in respect of these depositions. Some Judges are known to disallow this particular question for the reason that it does not touch on the live issues before the Court. This is arguably true – though there is a counter argument that bears much weight as well. The question is this – “You signed your witness deposition in your Lawyer’s office?”. The truthful witness may say a damaging “yes” in response.

Simple question. A very simple one in-fact. One might even ask – why bother ask it at all? Buhari v INEC (2008) holds the answer. Relying on Buhari’s case (Supra), the Court of Appeal has held in Aliyu v Bukali (2019) LPELR 46513 CA that such witness depositions that are signed in a Lawyer’s office are incompetent, inadmissible and liable to be expunged by the Court. See also; BUBA & ANOR v. MAHMUD & ANOR (2020) LPELR-51404(CA) and Erokwu & Anor Vs Erokwu (2016) LPELR – 41515 CA on this issue.

May our examples not take us off the point being driven at which is – A recent Court of Appeal or better still a Supreme Court authority that departs from the previous stream of judicial decisions could be a formidable addition to any Lawyer’s available arsenal for a client’s case.

Most times, it is not the bench turning the stream of judicial reasoning and case law in a different direction. It could in fact be a repeal of one law and enactment of another. Or even still, deliberate legislative action that is targeted at tacitly overruling applicable Case Law.

In fact, the gist of most of what I have said is; what you suspect the law to be might in fact not be the position of the law anymore. And if this change in the direction of the law comes from an appellate Court, happy are ye. I am currently unaware of any principle of law to the effect that recently decided cases at higher courts do not apply to ongoing cases at lower Courts where the proceedings in the later where ongoing before the higher court’s decision. So, stare decisis can actually favorably work in the most unlikely of situations and thus, change the litigation strategy or metrics of a case.

In the end, Litigation Lawyers (and indeed all Lawyers) are in a read-and-keep-reading-or-sink-situation.

I end with the words of the Learned Jurist; Niki Tobi JSC in Abubakar v Yar’Adua (2008) 19 NWLR Pt 1120 at Pg 141 “…I must confess that none of the cases cited by learned Senior Advocate in the briefs was known by me when I decided Inakoju. I do not know all the law…it is possible that I am wrong.”

If Niki-Tobi didn’t did it, I didn’t did it.

Nkobowo Frederick LLB