The plaintiffs case was that the land in dispute which was verged red in plan OG 477/80 which was put in evidence as exhibit A, was settled on by their ancestor, one Ojo Sango, after the Kiriji war which affected Ibadan. It was claimed that Ojo Sango came to the land in dispute together with his two brothers - Abidogun and Sangotayo. They settled on and used the land. On their death, they were succeeded on the land in dispute by the children of Sangotayo, who were in turn succeeded by their own children (that is the grandchildren of Sangotayo). The plaintiffs are the grandchildren of Sangotayo.

On the other hand, the case for the 1st and 3rd defendants, though similar, was different. The case for the 1st defendant was that an area of the land in dispute which was verged green in exhibit A was settled upon by conquest by one Bamimeke Akanbi, who was a warrior during the reign of Bashorun Oluyole who ruled Ibadan from 1820 to 1850. When Bamimeke Akanbi died, he was succeeded on the land by members of his family. 1st defendant claimed title of the piece of land verged green in exhibit A through the family of Bamimeke Akanbi.

The case for the 3rd appellant was that a piece of land, which is part of the land in dispute and which verged yellow in exhibit A, was first acquired jointly by Ogunfalu and Bamimeke by settlement and occupation under Yoruba Native Law and Custom. The acquisition took place during the reign of Bashorun Oluyole.

Ogunfalu and Bamimeke were succeeded on the piece of land in question by their children who had been in undisturbed possession. The children had sold portions of the land to various people including the mother of the 3rd defendant, called Fehintola. On her death, Fehintola was succeeded on the land by her three children, one of whom, is the 3rd defendant. The 3rd defendant sold a portion of the land they inherited to the 2nd defendant, who did not contest the plaintiffs claims.

The learned trial Judge accepted and believed the plaintiff’s traditional history. He however held that the plaintiffs had not shown sufficient acts of ownership to entitle them to possession and non-suited them.

Plaintiffs appealed to the Court of Appeal, which reversed the trial court’s decision.

Appellants appealed to the Supreme Court.