The facts that gave rise to this appeal are as follows: The 1st appellant, who sued for himself and on behalf of the Ikolaba Ayoola Chieftaincy Family claimed to be the original owner of the land in dispute known as Ogbomoso Farm Settlement. The 2nd - 9th appellants are allottees of land in the Farm Settlement. The 1st respondent is the traditional ruler, the Onpetu of Ijeru in Ogbomoso South Local Government Area of Oyo State. The case of the appellants, is that the Ikolaba Ayoola Family becameseised of the land in dispute vide a grant by Soun Kumoye, the Soun of Ogbomoso, to their ancestor, Ikolaba Olufimo and that upon his demise, the land devolved on his children and grandchildren who successively exercised acts of ownership thereon, including farming and the grant of customary tenancies. The 1st appellant's family was allegedly approached sometime in 1948 by the Premier of the then Western Region and the Baale of Ogbomoso for the release of the land for the establishment of a farm school. It was the 1st appellant's contention that the land was released on the basis of a "negotiated acquisition," as no compensation was paid to the family. Upon the acquisition, the farm school was established.

The Government of the Western Region subsequently acquired another portion of the land from the family, which acquisition was published in the Western Region of Nigeria Gazette No.3 Vol. 9 (Exhibit 33). For this second acquisition the 1st appellant's family was paid 460, with which the 1st appellant built his house. According to the appellants the later acquisition was merged with the former and collectively known as Ogbomoso Farm Settlement. However, locally the two acquisitions retained their original descriptions as Old Farm School and Ogbomoso Farm Settlement respectively.

The appellants further contend that the area covered by the Old Farm School as published in Exhibit 33, which was about 4,422 acres, was enlarged by the Government vide another acquisition contained in Notice No.876 of 12th July, 1962 published in Gazette No. 50 (Exhibit 33A) to cover approximately 6,116 acres. Portions of the enlarged parcel of land were granted to farmers for farming purposes only on leasehold basis.

It was contended that after the demise of his predecessor in title and after he had been installed as the traditional ruler of ljeru, the 1st respondent wrote to the government of western Region seeking the release of the old Farm school land. According to the appellants, the 1st respondent had trespassed on the land even before he wrote to request for its release by selling portions to third parties and even burying his wife thereon. Notwithstanding protests from the 1st appellant's family and the farm settlement officer against the acts of trespass, 55% of the land was released to the 1st respondent, while the government retained 45%.

It was the appellants' contention that the release of the land to the 1st respondent did not take into account the interest of farmers who had been granted portions of the land by the government upon the payment of prescribed fees as ground rent. The appellants alleged that in a bid to sell off the land, the 1st respondent destroyed the farmers' crops. It was on this basis that they approached the Court for the reliefs set out earlier in this judgment. It is the 1st appellant's contention that where the purpose for the acquisition is abandoned wholly or partially, and release of the land occurs, it is his family that is entitled to the reversionary interest in the land.

The 1st respondent, on the other hand, contended that the Old Farm School land belongs to his family and that it shares a boundary with the Farm Settlement. It is his contention that the Farm Settlement land was acquired from his family by the government of the Old Western Region and that they were paid compensation through the family solicitor to the tune of 12,232. That there was no compensation paid to the 1st appellant's family or the Soun of Ogbomoso, who allegedly granted the land to their ancestor. He contended that the land in dispute is the land known as Old Farm School. That when he ascended the throne as Onpetu of Ijeru in 1999, his family members complained about the activities of the farm settlers on the land. All efforts to settle the matter through the office of the farm manager failed, and this prompted him to write to the Commissioner for Agriculture to intervene. As a result of a tripartite meeting held between the farm settlers/plaintiffs, the 1st respondent and the Secretary to the State Government, it was agreed that the boundaries of the Farm Settlement should be-traced by the government surveyors.

According to the 1st respondent, at a subsequent meeting held between the Deputy Governor, representing the Government, the Ministry of Agriculture and the two parties, it was concluded that the old farm school was never acquired by the State government. It was contended that if the government had acquired the old farm school it would have paid compensation to the 1st appellant's family.

He maintained that the Soun of Ogbomoso, who allegedly granted the land in dispute to the 1st appellant's ancestor could not have done so, as he did not own land in that area.

It was the contention of the 2nd and 3rd respondents that the area known as the old farm school was never acquired by the government nor was it allocated to the 2nd - 9th appellants as settlers. They further contended that the land in dispute was leased to them by the respondent's family for a period of 10 years in 1961 and that the land was released to the family when the lease lapsed due to effluxion of time. They pleaded that they had erroneously believed that the old farm school land belonged to them, having regard to its proximity to the farm settlement, which they acquired. Upon realising that the land belonged to the 1st respondent, they met with him and requested to be allowed to remain in occupation of the portion of the land on which they had erected structures being used for public purposes. According to them, it was as a result of a resolution between them that 55% of the land was released to the 1st respondent while they were allowed to remain in occupation of 45% on which their structures were built.

The learned trial Judge visited the locus in quo at the close of the case for the defence. After considering the addresses of counsel, the learned trial Judge, on 7th March 2007, entered judgment in favour of the plaintiffs and granted all their reliefs. The N50 million claimed as damages for trespass, was however reduced to N500,000.00. The 1st respondent was dissatisfied with the decision and filed an appeal at the Ibadan Division of the Court of Appeal. His appeal was allowed on 1st February, 2013. The judgment of the trial Court was set aside. Not surprisingly, the appellants are aggrieved at this turn of events and have further appealed to this Court.