IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NIGERIA
On Monday, the 30th Day of June, 2014
CA/E/431/2007
BETWEEN
1. APOSTLE PETER EKWEOZOR
2. REV. K. ONYEMA ................. Appellant
3. THE REGISTERED TRUSTEES OF SAVIOUR'S APOSTOLIC CHURCH
V.
THE REGISTERED TRUSTEES OF SAVIOURS APOSTOLIC CHURCH OF NIGERIA .............. Respondent
APPEARANCES
C. Chuma Oguejiofor with I. Aroh, N. Ezema, A. T. N. Nwaka and C. I. Uleogaranya for Appellant
Chief (Mrs) Offiah, SAN with Uchechukwu Onyekachi Esq. for Respondent
MAIN JUDGMENT
MISITURA OMODERE BOLAJI-YUSUFF, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment):
This appeal emanated from the judgment of Anambra State High Court holden at Awka which was delivered in suit No. AA/120/86 on 31st July, 2007.
The respondent as the plaintiff before the Lower Court in the Further Amended Statement of Claim dated and filed on 17th June, 2001 inter alia claimed against the appellants as the defendants as follows:
"1) A declaration that the plaintiffs are entitled to a Statutory Right of Occupancy over the said premises of Saviour's Apostolic Church of Nigeria situate at Awka the annual value of which is about N10,000.00
2). General damages for trespass N2,000,000.00
3). Injunction restraining the defendants by themselves, their servants, agents or workmen from further interfering with the church premises aforesaid at Awka, or in any other manner inconsistent with the ownership and or possession of the said premises by the plaintiffs.
4) Return of the properties of the Church aforesaid named at paragraph 15 above or their estimated value thereof.
5). Account for all the monies found to be due to the plaintiffs which the defendants collected from S.A.C. Awka or accrued to them by virtue of remaining and or utilizing the church and or by still holding out themselves as Ministers of the said S. A. C. and payment of the same to the plaintiffs or into the Court for plaintiffs' use, starting from the 29th of December, 1977 till judgment in this case".
The case went to trial and both parties called witnesses. In a well considered judgment, the Lower Court entered judgment in favour of the respondent except the claim for return of vehicles which was "dismissed for not having been substantiated by evidence". The appellants being dissatisfied with the judgment initially filed only one ground of appeal. Twelve (12) additional grounds were filed on 10th March, 2009. The 13 grounds of appeal without their particulars are:-
(1) ERROR IN LAW
"The learned trial judge erred in law when he assumed jurisdiction, entertained and entered judgment in this suit even, as the State Court lacks the jurisdiction to entertain the suit as constituted.
(2) ERROR IN LAW
"The learned trial judge erred in law when he held "The plaintiffs therefore having tendered the original certificate of their Incorporation Exh."C" has satisfied the requirements of the law----------. An association that has been incorporated has legal personality. It can sue and be sued in its corporate name. I hold therefore that the plaintiffs are duly registered and as such are competent to sue".
(3) ERROR IN LAW
"The learned trial judge erred in law when he held "In the instant case, the application Exhibit 'R' was made in writing and signed by the person who made the application and it contains the several particulars applicable to the case. The Federal Ministry of Internal Affairs acted on it and granted Exhibit C. Exhibit C - a certificate of incorporation having been granted, is conclusive evidence by virtue of section 6 of the Land (Perpetual Succession Act Cap. 98) that all the preliminary requisitions contained therein and required in respect of such incorporation mentioned in the certificate - Exhibit C is deemed (sic) as the date at which incorporation of the plaintiffs took place.
Therefore, the plaintiffs are duly registered and competent to sue".
(4) ERROR IN LAW
"The learned trial judge erred in law when he held "By virtue of this section, Exhibit 'B' vested in Saviour's Church of Nigeria the Land in dispute, which belongs to the association and was held in trust for the association before its incorporation. Upon the change of name, from Saviour's Church of Nigeria to Saviour's Apostolic Church of Nigeria on 18th March, 1986 Exhibit B ceased to exist and Exhibit C replaced it. Therefore by virtue of Exhibit C, the Land in dispute and interests therein vests in the plaintiffs. This is so because the plaintiffs being a corporate body have perpetual Succession".
(5) ERROR IN LAW
"The learned trial judge erred in law when he held "Awka Local Government in 1952 granted Rev. John Ekweozor the land in dispute for the establishment of Church (sic), which he held in trust as a trustee of the Church. I am satisfied that the plaintiffs have established the traditional history of the land in dispute which they relied on as root of title".
(6) ERROR IN LAW
"The learned trial judge erred in law when the held "I find the evidence of PW1 And PW4 on issue of various acts of ownership of the plaintiffs over the land in dispute, which are numerous and positive from 1952 when the land was granted to the plaintiffs until 1977 when the defendants started claiming the Church buildings, properties therein and the Church premises, which is the land in dispute credible and reliable and I believe and accept them. I find therefore that the plaintiffs have successfully proved title to the land in dispute by various acts of ownership on the land in dispute, numerous and positive and which extended over a length of time."
(7) ERROR IN LAW
"The learned trial judge erred in law when he had held "The defendants have not by evidence proved that they are owners of the land in dispute or that they have been in long possession of the land in dispute or done acts of long possession and enjoyment of the land".
(8) ERROR IN LAW
"The learned trial judge erred in law when he held "More also the land in dispute is owned by Saviour's Church of Nigeria which the plaintiffs succeeded and becomes the owner of the same".
(9) ERROR IN LAW
"The learned trial judge erred in law when he held "The plaintiffs' possession of the land in dispute is clear and exclusive from their trustees up to merger in 1958 and continued thereafter up to their registration in 1961 Exhibit B, and up till 1977, the point of trespass when the 1st and 2nd defendants resigned from the plaintiffs church and refused to hand over the plaintiff so properties to the PW1 as they were directed vide Exhibit E......... The plaintiffs are therefore entitled to damages"
(10) ERROR IN LAW
The learned trial judge erred in law when he held "In view of all I have said above, it is clear therefore that Reliefs 4 and 5 of the plaintiffs succeeds in part and fail in part".
(11) ERROR IN LAW
The learned trial judge erred in law when he held "The obvious effect of the registration of the trustees of Saviour's Church of Nigeria - Exhibit B vests in the body corporate, all land or any interest therein of whatever nature and tenure formerly belonging to or held by any person or persons in trust for the body or association of persons before its registration. Therefore all lands or any interest therein of whatever nature and tenure formerly held by Rev. John Ekweozo or Apostle J. A Ogudipe or Saviour's Church of Nigeria before Exhibit B vest on the body corporate in Exhibit B from the date of the incorporation mentioned in Exhibit B, which is 30th June, 1961".
(12) ERROR IN LAW
"The learned trial judge erred in law in entering judgment in favour of the plaintiffs/respondents in this matter especially in declaring that they were entitled to the statutory right of occupancy over the disputed property, damages in their favour amounting to N500,000.00 against the appellants, perpetual injunction restraining them from trespassing on the property and that they render account for all monies collected by them since 1977 till date."
(13) ERROR IN LAW
The learned trial judge erred in law when he held "it is clear from these testimonies which I find credible and reliable that the land in dispute was granted to the Church free through late Pastor John Ekweozor, who is one of the trustees of Saviours Church of Nigeria as can be seen from the testimony of PWI and Exhibit "B"....... . I hold therefore that Late Pastor John Ekweozor being one of the trustees of Saviour's Church of Nigeria held the land in dispute in trust for the Church organization - Saviour's Church of Nigeria."
In his brief of argument dated 14th March, 2009 and filed on 16th March, 2009 which was adopted on 27th May, 2014, the appellants' Counsel distilled four (a) Issues for determination from the grounds of appeal. The issues are:
"1. Whether the State High Court i.e. the high Court of Anambra State Awka, had jurisdiction to have entertained the suit instead of the Federal High Court".
2. Whether the action was competent having been commenced by the plaintiffs/respondents instead of Saviour's Church of Nigeria which had been Incorporated since 1961 and with registration No. 558 especially as the same had not been dissolved in accordance with section 691(1) of CAMA 1990", nor was evidence of change of name of the said Saviour's Church of Nigeria to Savour's Apostolic Church of Nigeria pleaded or led at the trial".
3. "Whether the plaintiffs/respondents had discharged the onus of proof placed on them to show that title in the property in dispute vested on them in this matter and was the learned trial judge right in shifting the burden of proof of title to the property from the plaintiffs/respondents to the defendants/appellants who in any event had filed no counter claim in the matter".
4. "Whether the learned trial judge was right in holding that reliefs 4 and 5 of the plaintiffs/respondents had succeeded in part and failed in part and whether their claim for trespass, damages, injunction and accounts against the defendants/appellants was not statute barred in view of the provisions of the Actions Law, Cap 3 Laws of Anambra State of Nigeria 1986."
The respondent's Counsel identified five issues for determination. The issues are:-
1. "WHETHER THE HIGH COURT OF ANAMBRA STATE HAD JURISDICTION TO ENTERTAIN THIS SUIT. (Distilled from original ground and 11th additional ground)
2. WHETEHR THE ACTION WAS COMPETENT HAVING BEEN COMMENCED BY THE PLAINTIFFS/RESPONDENTS INSTEAD OF SAVIORS CHURCH OF NIGERIA. (distilled from 1st, 2nd and 3rd additional grounds).
3. WHETHER THE RESPONDENTS DISCHARGED THE BURDEN OF PROOF PLACED ON THEM IN LINE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE EVIDENCE ACT. (Distilled from 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 10th, 11th and 12th additional grounds).
4. WHETHER THE JUDGMENT OF THE TRIAL COURT WAS CLEAR AND UNAMBIGUOUS IN RELATION TO RELIEFS 4 AND 5 OF THE RESPONDENTS AT THE TRIAL COURT; AND WHETHER THE CLAIM FOR TRESPASS AND DAMAGES WERE VALID IN THE CIRCUMSTANCE.
(distilled from 9th additional ground).
5. WHETHER GROUNDS 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 10, 11 AND 12 ARE COMPETENT GROUNDS ARISING OUT OF THE SUIT AND THE JUDGMENT OF THE LOWER COURT.
The 1st - 4th issues formulated by the respondent's counsel are the same as the 4 issues formulated for determination by the appellants' counsel. Issue 5 is challenging the competence of grounds 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 10, 11, and 12 of the grounds of appeal.
I have perused the grounds of appeal and the issues identified by counsel to both parties, I have found that issues 1- 4 adequately covered issues raised by the grounds of appeal and hereby adopt them for the determination of this appeal.
Before I go into the issues, I find it appropriate to deal with the preliminary point raised by Issue No. 5 formulated by the respondent's counsel. The issue is whether grounds 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 10, 11 and 12 of the appeal are competent grounds arising out of the suit and the judgment of the Lower Court. It is the law that a ground or grounds of appeal must relate to or arise from the judgment being appealed against. It must be based on the ratio decidendi of the judgment and not on a mere obiter dictum or an expression of opinion by the trial judge. The issues distilled from the grounds must also emanate from the judgment being appealed against. Any ground not traceable to the ratio or reasons for the judgment being appealed against and any issue distilled therefrom will be incompetent and is liable to be struck out. See GATEWAY SAYER PRODUCTS NIG. LTD & ANOR VS. I.B. PLC (2011) LPELR 189 (CA). There is an exception to that rule and that exception is when an issue of jurisdiction is being raised for the first time on appeal.
It is trite that an issue of jurisdiction can be raised at any stage of the proceedings even on appeal and without the leave of the Court, though it is desirable to raise it at the Lower Court to save costs and avoid waste of valuable judicial time. See IKE VS INEC [2010] LPELR 4293 (CA). In this appeal I have perused the grounds of appeal vis-a- vis the judgment being appealed against, there is no doubt that ground 1 which is the original ground of appeal is challenging the jurisdiction of the Lower Court to adjudicate on the claim before it. Ground 1 being an issue of jurisdiction can be raised at any stage of proceedings even in the Supreme Court and by any means including a ground of appeal. Grounds 1, 2 and 3 in the additional grounds of appeal are challenging the Lower Court's findings on the legal personality of the respondent, its right to sue and be sued and the effect of the new certificate of incorporation issued to the respondent in 1986 among other findings. Grounds 7, 8, 10, 11 and 12 are in respect of the learned trial judge's findings and decisions relating to title to the land and property in dispute. What I have found in respect of the grounds of appeal in this case is that the appellant has virtually made every finding by the learned trial judge a ground of appeal which led to multiple grounds in respect of only one issue. I am of the view that the proliferation of the grounds of appeal though is totally undesirable but it is not fatal to the appeal in this case particularly when both parties have rightly distilled only four issues which are relevant to the determination of this appeal from those grounds of appeal. Based on the foregoing I hereby resolve issue 5 formulated by the respondent's counsel in favour of the appellant.
Issue 1 is whether the Anambra State High Court had jurisdiction to entertain this suit. On this issue, the appellants' counsel submitted that the suit as constituted ought to have been entertained by the Federal High Court and not Anambra State High Court because the suit is not just a land matter but principally about the operation of the COMPANIES AND ALLIED MATTERS ACT, (CAMA) (1990) and its application to entities incorporated under Part C of the Act. He referred to paragraphs 1- 6, 8, 9 (C-E),10, 13, 14 and 16 of the Further Amended Statement of claim, he submitted that the facts pleaded in those paragraphs put it beyond any doubt that the suit relates to the affairs of a religious body registered under the Land (Perpetual Succession) Act, Cap 98 now CAMA which is now factionalized with each faction claiming superior pedigree or more authentic connection with the original Church and its property. He referred to Section 7 (1) (C) of the Federal High Court Act, Cap. 134, Laws of the Federation 1990, Section 25 ((i) (e) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), SKEN CONSULT VS UKEY, 1981 1 SC 6, OMISADE VS AKANDE & ORS (1987) 1 NALR PAGE 207. It was argued that the respondent's claim is all about the property and assets of an entity registered under Part C of CAMA 1990, the manner the factions of that entity share its property and which faction gets what. He urged the Court to set aside the judgment of the trial Court and strike out the respondent's claim for want of jurisdiction because this case is not simply for declaration of title to property, it is about whether Saviour's Church of Nigeria has been dissolved or whether its name was merely changed to Saviour's Apostolic Church of Nigeria and if so changed, whether it translates to the property of the former devolving automatically on the latter which are questions that can only be adjudicated upon by the Federal High Court. He referred to YALAJU-AMAYE vs AREC LTD, 1990 6 SC PAGE 157 AT 193, WINDIBIZIM & 2 ORS VS NJILA & 2 ORS 2002, FWLR [PT.132] PAGE 96 AET 127 AND 128.
On this issue, the learned senior counsel for the respondent submitted that the jurisdiction of a Court to adjudicate on a case is determined by the plaintiff's claim as disclosed in the writ of summons and/or endorsed in the statement of claim. She referred to N.I.M.R. VS AKIN-OLUGBADE (2008) 5 NWLR (PT.1079) AT 90, AMECHI VS INEC (2007) 9 NWLR (Pt.1040) PAGE 504 AT 533-534, and numerous other cases. She further submitted that the reliefs sought by the respondents in the Court below was principally for a declaration of title to a Statutory Right of Occupancy, damages for trespass, injunction and an order to render account over which the Anambra State High Court has original jurisdiction by virtue of Sections 39 and 41 of the Land Use Act. She argued that the issue in contest was not the propriety or otherwise of the incorporation of the respondent as issues were not joined on Exhibits B and C (Certificates of Incorporation) and which were not challenged. She submitted that where the landed property of an incorporated trustee is in issue and the relief sought is a declaration of title to land as in this case, the proper court to assume jurisdiction is the High Court where the land is situate. She further submitted that what the appellant has unsuccessfully done in their brief of argument is to engage in a futile labour of setting up a case different from that which the respondent presented in the Lower Court and which formed the basis of the judgment now appealed against. Additionally, that the appellants cannot do that under the guise of arguing their appeal. She referred to AMUDA Vs ADELODUN (1994) 8 NWLR PT.360 page 23 at 31.
The settled principle of law guiding the determination of the issue of jurisdiction of the Lower Court to entertain this case is that it is the nature of the plaintiff's claim as endorsed on the writ of summons or statement of claim where one has been filed that determine the jurisdiction of the Court.
Where pleadings have been filed, it is the averments in the statement of claim that has to be examined and not the statement of defence. The case of the respondent as donated by the Further Amended Statement of Claim is that late Apostle Peter Ekweozor, Reverend Onyema and 4 others who were ordained ministers in the respondent's Church resigned their membership and ministration of the Church but they refused to hand over the Church's properties or quit the Church premises as demanded by the respondent. They alleged that they have broken away from the Church and proceeded to register their alleged break away Church as the Saviours Apostolic Church, Awka claiming ownership of the land on which the respondent's Church was built in Awka, which land was granted to the respondent free in the 1950s by Awka Local Government Council.
A thorough reading of the entire averments in the Further Amended Statement of Claim leaves me in no doubt that this dispute is simply about ownership of the land on which the respondent's Church in Awka was built. The argument of the appellants' counsel that this case is about the operation of CAMA, the effect of a change of the respondent's name and the effect of resignation of the ministers from the Church is not tenable. The alleged factionalisation of the Church in my view is also not supported by the pleadings and even the evidence on record. That is the case now being introduced by the appellants based on misinterpretation of the averments in the respondent's pleadings. It is settled by the authority of MADUKOLU VS NKEMDILIM (1962) 1 ALL NLR 587 that the competence of a Court depends entirely on whether the subject matter of the case is within its jurisdiction, that there is no feature in the case which prevents the Court from exercising jurisdiction and that the case comes before the Court by due process of law. The entire claim and case of the respondent is about title to land, therefore the Federal High Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit since it has nothing to do with the management of the respondent. See AZAGBA VS NIGERIAN COLLEGE OF AVIATION TECHNOLOGY, ZARIA & ANOR (2013) LPELR-2074 (CA) ADETAYO & ORS VS ADEMOLA & ORS (2010) 15 NWLR (PT.1215) PAGE 169 where the Supreme Court held as follows:-
"The action or proceedings for a declaration injunction stipulated in section 251 (1) is that which affected the validity of and executive or administrative action or decision by the Federal Government or any of its agencies and this has no bearing with the declaration that any person is entitled to be issued with certificate of occupancy in respect of parcels of land at Yakoyo near Ojodu village".
Even if there is any issue which calls for the consideration of the provisions of CAMA in this case, it is ancillary to the issue of title to land which was the main claim of the respondent before the Lower Court.
The law is that where a party's claim falls within the jurisdiction of two separate courts, it is the court that has the jurisdiction to adjudicate on the principal claim that should be approached, See TUKUR VS GOVERNOR OF GONGOLA STATE [2011] 9 SCM PAGE 155 AT 187 where the Supreme Court held as follows:-
"If there is a Court with jurisdiction to determine all the issues raised in a matter including the principal issue, it is improper to approach a Court that is competent to determine only some of the issues.
The incompetence of the Court to entertain and determine the principal question is enough to nullify the whole proceedings and judgment as there is no room for half judgment in any matter brought before the Court." See also GAFAR VS KWARA STATE & ORS [2007] 4 SCM 110 - 126 -127
On the facts and circumstances disclosed by the averments of the respondent in the Further Amended Statement of Claim, issue I is resolved against the appellants. The Anambra State High Court had jurisdiction to adjudicate on the respondent's claim.
Issue 2 is whether this action is competent having been commenced by the respondent instead of Saviour's Church of Nigeria incorporated in 1961. On this issue, the learned appellants' counsel submitted that the name which was registered in 1961 with certificate No 558 is "saviour's Church of Nigeria, any proceedings in Court such as the present suit must be commenced in that name otherwise the action is incompetent by virtue of section 679 (1) of CAMA. He argued that a corporate body once formed remains alive in the eyes of the law, until it is dissolved under the provisions of section 691(1) of CAMA. He further argued that there is no evidence that "saviour's Church of Nigeria has been dissolved or that the provisions of Section 680 (1) of CAMA were complied with to change the name to Saviour's Apostolic Church of Nigeria. He referred to Section 683 of CAMA. He submitted that there is no nexus between the respondent and the subject matter of this suit. He urged the Court to hold that this suit is incompetent not having been commenced in the name of Saviour's Church Nigeria.
In response, the learned senior counsel for the respondent submitted that the issue of the change of the respondent's name was not the issue in controversy before the Lower Court and the appellant did not allege in their pleading or evidence that the respondent breached any condition set out in Exhibits B and C. I have perused the pleadings of both parties which are the Further Amended Statement of Claim dated 17th June, 2001 and the defendants Statement of defence dated 31st August, 2001. I cannot find any averment challenging the capacity of the respondent to institute this suit or the identity of the respondent, its existence or non existence. However in paragraphs 1 and 6 of the respondent's pleading, the legal personality of the respondent is pleaded as follows:-
"1. The plaintiffs are the registered trustees of a Christian religious Organization called Saviour's Apostolic Church of Nigeria registered as No. 558 under the Land (Perpetual Succession) Act, Cap.98.
6A. This Saviour's Apostolic Church of Nigeria were known as Saviour's Church of Nigeria and were incorporated in that name as shown in the said certificate of incorporation dated 30/6/61, and referred to at paragraph 6 above.
6B The plaintiffs are sometimes referred to merely as Saviour's Apostolic Church.
6C When the 1st defendant was ordained priest, the plaintiffs' church was known as Saviour's Church of Nigeria and incorporated as such as already stated, but later incorporated as Saviour's Apostolic Church of Nigeria."
The defendants by paragraphs 2 and 6 of their pleadings denied the above averments. Both paragraphs read as follows:
"2. The defendants strenuously deny paragraph 3 of the statement of claim and will at the trial put the plaintiff to the strictest proof of the same.
6. The defendants strenuously deny paragraph 6 of the statement of claim and put the plaintiff to very strict proof of the same. The defendants aver that the only property which was the subject of dispute was the property of the defendants Church known as "The SAVIOURS APOSTOLIC CHURCH' at Akwu Achi in Oji River Local Government Area of Anambra State. The plaintiff through their agent one Rev. S. O. Nnam instituted action at Oji Magistrate Court in Suit No MOR/4/79 Rev. S. O. Nnam Vs Rev. Peter Ekweozor and 10 others claiming N750.00 as general damages for trespass and injunction restraining the defendants from trespassing into the Church premises".
I am of the view that since the appellants denied paragraphs 1 and 6 of the respondent's pleading, the onus is on the respondent to prove its legal personality. The law is settled that the only way to prove the identity or juristic personality of a company or a registered association is by tendering the original or certified true copy of the certificate of incorporation, See REPTICO S. A. GEREVA VS FOIBANLR NIGERIA PLC (2013) LPELR 2066 (SC) where the Supreme Court held as follows:-
"On this land, Nigeria, the only acceptable and legally recognized way of establishing that a company is an incorporated limited liability company entitled to sue and be sued in particular when parties join issue on the matter, is by producing in evidence the certificate of incorporation. No other document will suffice".
In this case, the respondent tendered Exhibits B and C as evidence of incorporation. Those certificates were issued under the Lands (Perpetual Succession) Act, Section 3 of which provides that a certificate of incorporation so granted shall be conclusive evidence that all the preliminary requirements in respect of incorporation have been complied with. However, the Lands (Perpetual Succession) Act has been repealed by section 694 of the Companies and Allied Matters Act (CAMA). By virtue of section 695 of CAMA, all trustees duly registered as bodies corporate under the Land (Perpetual Succession) Act are deemed to be registered in accordance with Part C of CAMA and the provisions of that Part C shall apply in respect of such trustees. No doubt the respondent is one of such registered trustees, therefore the provisions of section 673 to 695 of CAMA applies to the respondent.
The effect of incorporation of trustees such as the respondent is stated in paragraph 679 of CAMA which reads:-
1. "From the date of registration, the trustee or trustees shall become a body corporate by the name described in the certificate, and shall have perpetual succession and a common seal, and power to sue and be sued in its corporate name as such trustee or trustees and subject to section 685 of this PART of this Act to hold and acquire, and transfer, assign or otherwise dispose of any property or interests therein belonging to, or held for the benefit of such association, in such manner and subject to such restrictions and provisions as the trustees might without incorporation, hold or acquire, transfer, assign or otherwise dispose of the same for the purposes of such community, body or association of persons.
2. The certificate of incorporation shall vest in the body corporate all property and interest of whatever nature or tenure belonging to or held by any person in trust for such community, body or association of persons.
3. A certificate of incorporation when granted shall be prima facie evidence that all the preliminary requisitions herein contained and required in respect of such incorporation have been complied with and the date of incorporation mentioned in such certificate shall be deemed to be the date on which incorporation has taken place."
Unlike section 6 of the Lands (Perpetual Succession) Act under which a certificate issued thereunder was a conclusive evidence that all re