The Plaintiffs (now Appellants) sued at the High Court, Ibadan claiming against the Defendants a declaration that they are entitled to statutory rights of occupancy in respect of three parcels of land verged red and marked A2, B and C respectively in Plaintiffs survey plan No. LL 9282, damages for trespass and perpetual injunction. It is common ground between the parties that the said parcels of land are located at a place called Isebo. It is also common ground that they form part of a large piece of land originally owned by Ogunlade Alao Laamo and that the said Laamo had seven male children.

None of the parties to this case claims to be a descendant of Laamo. The case of the plaintiffs is that Laamo shared his land in Isebo and gave absolute grant to each of his seven male children it was thereafter, in the course of inheritance and alienation which transpired from that absolute grant, that the plaintiffs claim to have acquired by Purchase the lands in dispute, traced through the share of Anwoola who was one of the children of Laamo.

The plaintiffs pleaded that Laamo in his life time granted portions of his land at Isebo to each of his seven sons absolutely for farming. He also granted land to his war lieutenants who included Efunwole Okesina and Areja, and also his domestics who included Fuleso. The area covered by the parcels marked B and C in the survey plan was part of the land granted to Ariwoola absolutely. He farmed it and when he died his son Akinleye inherited the land. When Akinleye was Mogaji he sold the area marked B and C to one Madam Osuntola to defend a case he was involved in. Madam Osuntola’s son called Lawani sold the land back to Chief Yesufu Itanola Laamo who took possession thereof some 50 years back from the time pleadings were settled in 1985. In 1977 Chief Itanola Laamo sold the land to the 1st Plaintiff. The 1st plaintiff later granted portions to 2nd and 3rd Plaintiffs, her children. The 4th and 5th plaintiffs are concerned with the parcel marked A2 which, does not appear to have been put in issue. The learned trial judge himself (Olowofoyeku J) said so as follows:-

“In regard to area (A2) of exhibit A I have no evidence from the plaintiffs side complaining of any trespass or claim to the same by any of the defendants. Also the defence case as presented before the court did not lay any claim by any of the defendants (to) that area”.

On the other hand, the defendants aver that there was no absolute grant by Laamo to his children but that he merely permitted some of his children to farm on his land at Isebo and that after his death, the land became family property. But they admitted, as pleaded by the plaintiffs, that Laamo made absolute grant to his war lieutenants and domestics. As regards the area covered by parcels B and C, the Defendants pleaded that Omokebe and Ariwoola (children of Laamo) merely farmed on them and that after they died. Akinleye and another farmed on the land. Their pleadings is that while that land was family property, it was sold by Yesufu Itanola Laamo and his children to 4th Defendant in 1977 and that sometime later 4th Defendant sold a portion to 3rd defendant. It is also pleaded that Laamo granted a portion of the area of parcels B and C to one Dada, the grandfather of 1st defendant absolutely When Dada died, his children who included the 1st defendant’s father inherited his land; the 1st defendant and his brother later inherited the land. The 1st defendant built on part of the land and sold part to 2nd defendant who has also erected a building thereon.

At the hearing of the case, Yesufu Itanola Laamo whom the defendants pleaded sold part of the land in dispute testified as pw2. He said he was the Mogaji of Laamo Family. He gave evidence in support of the absolute grant made by Laamo to his seven sons and his war lieutenants and domestics. He described the 4th Defendant as a land speculator. Other witnesses testified as to who they knew owned the land in dispute. Of course, they all spoke in favour of the plaintiffs. Witnesses also testified on behalf of the defence apart from the 1st and 4th defendants who testified. The witnesses for the defence connected with Laamo are dw2 Karimu Adegoke Taiwo, dw3 Alhaji Ganiyu Faoye and dw4 Jimoh Bolarinwa Laamo Surprisingly, dw4 said it was Ismaila Laamo who first resettle on the land in dispute at Isebo contrary to what was understood to have been pleaded as Ogunlade Alao Laamo. He then went to give evidence of genealogy which was not pleaded. He seemed to have confused most of the facts.

As it turned out in substance, it became a vital issue whether Laamo made to each of his sons absolute grant inter vivos (and some of his war lieutenants and domestics) as pleaded by the plaintiffs and given in evidence or that there was no such grant to his sons thereby leaving the bulk of his property including the land in dispute as family property as pleaded and given in evidence by the defendants. If there was such absolute grant and the land in dispute was part of what Akinleye inherited, the mode of sale and repurchase alleged as to whether it was in conformity with native law and custom will be for little or no importance in reaching a decision whether the present Plaintiffs have proved a case that will entitle them to their relief vis a vis the defendants case that the land was part of Laamo family property.

The learned trial judge without assessing the evidence adduced by both parties before him simply rejected the case of inter vivos grant presented by the plaintiffs based on his own personal understanding or perhaps personal knowledge. He said it was not usual, to use his words, that a land owner would have during his life time divested himself of title to his land by a grant of the same to his children. Children usually succeeded to land after the death of the parent and could thereafter appropriate specific areas to each of them by partition or otherwise the land would remain family land which they could always use.

The learned trial judge also held that there was no corroborative evidence in regard to the sale of the land by Akinleye and the purchase back of the same by pw2.

The learned trial judge referred to his personal recollection of a parcel of land about that same time (1931) which cost 1 pound sterling per acre in Ibadan to the Government of Nigeria, to come to the conclusion that it was improbable that land would have cost 55 pounds sterling at the time of repurchase.

It therefore dismissed the claim of the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs appeal to the Court of Appeal was dismissed. They further appealed to the Supreme Court.