The Writ of Summons by which the action in this case was initiated, was issued out in the Ibadan Judicial Division of the High court of Justice, Western Nigeria on 23rd August 1965. When Oyo State was created in 1976, the action was transferred to the Oyo Judicial Division of the High Court of Justice, Oyo State. The action was commenced by Babalola Atanda for and on behalf of Apodun Family against

Asking for the following declaration and relief:

Later and through subsequent applications Ojediran Janduku, Ogundoyin Abewon, Samuel Oyelami Olawoyin and Matthew OlaleyeIdowu were joined as the 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th defendants respectively. The plaintiff amended his writ by replacing Adepoju Ojediran with Adepoju Ayanwale as the 2nd defendant. On the death of Ogundoyin Abewon he was replaced by Adegoke Ogundoyin. Pleadings were ordered, filed and exchanged. Plans showing the areas in dispute were filed. The 4th defendant also filed a counter-claim against the plaintiff for a declaration of title in respect of the parcel of land in dispute.

The parties called witnesses to prove the averments in their respective pleadings in the course of which survey plans were tendered and admitted. On the conclusion of the hearing, the learned trial judge, Adenekan Ademola, J. (as he then was) reviewed the evidence adduced and made the following findings in the plaintiff's favour "I now come to the case of plaintiff. He claims the land in Exhibit 1 which he says was a grant made to his ancestors by the Alaafin Adelu. He was able to call the evidence of a descendant of Adelu in support of his claim of this grant to his fore fathers. I accept the traditional history of how his ancestors came to be on the land and the vicissitudes suffered by his family as a result of both the Dahomean war and the Fulani War. I accept that he was tenant on the land and in this respect I believe the evidence of Bello Ladipo 4 p.w. who is a tenant of his. The presence of this man on the land is not even denied by the second defendant who has seen him on the land in dispute. As I have said earlier on, I hold that the second and third defendants are his tenants, and in saying this, I believe the evidence of the plaintiff that the second and third defendants were his tenants, and that they have put tenants on the land in dispute and this they have been helped by the first defendant. This little piece of evidence is confirmed by 3 d.w., Lasisi Karimu who is a tenant of the first defendant. I come to this conclusion that Inamere was founded by the ancestors of the plaintiff and that the first plaintiff is Baale of it now. With all these findings which I have made in favour of the plaintiff, I would therefore award him the declaration sought in his writ of summons and injunction against all the defendants. On the issue of trespass, I find against the first, second, third and fourth defendants but dispute such claim against the fifth and the sixth defendants. The first, second, third, fourth defendants to pay the sum of fifty Naira each to the plaintiff as damages for trespass."

Aggrieved by the findings (supra) the defendants appealed to the Court of Appeal. After a careful consideration of the arguments for and against the judgment appealed against, the Court of Appeal, in a unanimous decision affirmed the findings and orders of the trial court and dismissed the appeal with the order that the 3rd, 5th and 6th Appellants/Defendants shall pay costs of N50.00 to the Respondent/Plaintiff, while the 4th respondent/defendant shall pay N75.00 to the respondent/ plaintiff by way of costs.