Disable Preloader

CaseLaw

Buraimoh V. Bamgbose (1989) CLR 6(b) (SC)

Judgement delivered on June 1st 1989

Brief

  • Issues of fact
  • Declaration of title
  • Title to land
  • Possession
  • Issues for determination
  • Section 45 of the Evidence Act

Facts

The case in the court of trial turned on whether the land in dispute was that of the plaintiff or the 1st defendant. At the court of trial a number of facts were really not in dispute. They were:

  • i
    That the plaintiff claims the land in dispute through one Joseph Olusoye Johnson who was granted the land by Abayomi Anjorin Family on a form of lease in 1940 at an annual rent of 5/- and a bottle of gin;
  • ii
    That Johnson was put in possession and erected a house on it in 1940, rebuilt in between 1944 and 1945;
  • iii
    That the land was formerly called Obele Kolade, later No.5 Obele Kolade village, then 20 Ekundayo Street and in 1960 Oseni Street; and
  • iv
    That as a result of a Supreme Court judgment in suit No.215 of 1951 Abayomi Anjorin Family lost title to the land, including the land in dispute, to Alago Asalu Family.

Up till this point, there was no dispute. From this point, however, the conflicting claims of both sides had different bases. Plaintiff claimed that some time after the said judgment, Alago Asalu Family partitioned the land the subject of suit No. 215/1951, and as a result of the partition the land in dispute became part of the land of Alhaja Suwebatu Falohun, a member of the family. The Alhaja, by a receipt dated 29th November, 1969 sold the land in dispute to Joseph Olusoye Johnson, and later by a deed of conveyance dated 22nd December, 1969, registered as No. 61 at Page 61 in Vol.1307 of the Deed, Registry, Lagos. Alhaja Falohun and Johnson conveyed the land in dispute to the plaintiff in fee simple.

From the point of difference, the 1st defendant's case was also different. His case was that after the 1951 judgment Aboki Bada Family took possession of the land. On the 8th of November, 1962, the land was advertised for sale by a licensed Auctioneer, Mr. T.A.T. Martins. He denied partition of the family property of Aboki Asalu Family, a branch of Alago Asalu Family, and allocation of any part of the family property to Alhaja Suwebatu Falohun. Rather by a power of attorney dated 6th August, 1962, and registered as No. 58 at page 58 in Volume 1204 of the Lands Registry, Lagos, the principal members of Aboki Bada Family, including Alhaja Suwebatu Falohun gave a power of attorney to Chief O.S. Bada to sell and convey the land in dispute. Pursuant to that power, Chief Bada sold the in dispute to the 1st defendant and conveyed same to him by a deed of conveyance dated 9th day of July, 1969, which is registered as No. 13 at page 13 in Volume 1297of the Lands Registry, Lagos. The 1st defendant stated that he had always been in possession of the land and had erected a house on it and exercised other acts of possession and ownership over it.

So, from the state of the cases before the High Court, the main issue was whether the plaintiff bought the land in dispute from Johnson who bought from Alhaja Suwebatu Falohun or the 1st defendant bought the land from Chief O.S. Bada, the attorney of Aboki Bada Family.

The findings of the learned trial Judge on the above contentious issues were summarized by Ademola, J.C.A., in his judgment in the Court of Appeal thus:

  • a
    "That the Supreme Court decision in Suit 215/1951 settled the question of title between Anjorin Abayomi and Alago Asalu in favour of Asalu family of which Aboki Bada is a branch.
  • b
    That after the case the family land was partitioned as in the Plan Exh. G and a portion of the land shown on Exh. G was allotted to Alhaja Suwebatu Ejide Falohun.
  • c
    The learned Judge also found that the first respondent was unable to show that what he bought by the conveyance he got was part of the 1.25 acres out the 59.9 acres of family land which Chief O. S. Bada was authorised by the family in the power of attorney Exh. F given him to sell.
  • d
    That the title of Alhaja Suwebatu Ejide Falohun was that of absolute ownership under native law and custom and that she could rightly convey that title. But what she conveyed in Exh. A was a fee simple estate to the appellant.
  • e
    It was also the finding of the learned Judge that the land in dispute had been in possession of the appellant through its predecessor in title since 1940 until the purported sale to the first respondent in 1969."

To these I may add the further finding that the 1st defendant built on the land in dispute, as a tenant of Johnson, in 1958. It does appear that the learned Judge dismissed the plaintiffs case mainly on the ground that she did not call an expert to show that the land sold and conveyed to her in Exh. A. was part of the land partitioned to Alhaja Suwebatu Falohun.

There is no appeal against the above findings, nor have they been successfully challenged in any way. Based on those findings the learned Justice of Appeal, with whose judgment Kazeem, J.C.A. (as he then was) and Mohammed, J.C.A., concurred, held that the learned Judge should have entered judgment for the respondent (the plaintiff). Their Lordships relied on the case of Ogunbambi v. Abowab (1951) 13 W.A.C.A. 222.

In short that Court held in terms that the sole ground upon which the learned trial Judge dismissed the plaintiff's case was untenable: that evidence of an expert is not the only admissible evidence on the point and that taking the findings and other available evidence into account the plaintiff was entitled to judgment.

Issues

Whether in a case where the claim is for a declaration of title and an order for...

Read More