The facts of the case are that the plaintiff now the respondent stated that he is in possession of a parcel of land situate at 12 Prince Hamidu Williams Way at Okota, Isolo which land forms part of a larger area of land belonging to Okota family and which he bought from the family at Okota in 1975. He stated that he erected a building on the land, but between 1984 - 85 he was detained by the Military Government and even though he had erected a building on that land, the defendant appellant used his misfortune of incarceration to make an ingress into that land. He stated that he had a well and a wooden mosque on the land. When the appellant was challenged, he claimed that he purchased the land in dispute on or about 25th of December, 1976 from the same Okota family who gave him a receipt which was an evidence of sale and he was accordingly put into possession at the instance of one Sura Agbabiaka and Billy Apena of the Okota family. The respondent called three witnesses none of who was from Okota family while the appellant called 2 witnesses one of whom was the head of the Okota family.

In his judgment, the learned trial Judge held:

"The land in dispute was sold to the plaintiff in 1975 by the Okota family of Isolo the same vendor of the plaintiff proceeded to sell the same land to the defendant in December, 1976. Plaintiff receipt is dated 25/10/75 No 82. Defendant receipt is dated 25/12/76 No 4376.

It is the same land the plaintiff produced Exhibit 'F' Survey Plan drawn in 1982 in respect of the land Exhibit C approved Building Plan. There was abundant evidence before me coming from the plaintiff his witnesses and from the defendant that the plaintiff had built on his own plot and the portion utilised is the one being sold to him by Okota family. From the above, I have no difficulty in coming to the conclusion that the plaintiff in this case (is) in actual physical possession. The story of the defendant and his witnesses cannot be true and I do not find it difficult in coming to conclusion that they are not speaking the truth.

Having lost the case and desirous of pursuing the matter of the presumed infraction of his interest in his land, the appellant lodged an appeal