In a writ of summons filed on 10th February, 1983 the present Respondent as Plaintiff, claimed against the Appellants, then Defendants the following reliefs:-

Originally the action was against Emmanuel Adebiyi, Eunice Makanjuola Bamisebi and Alimi Akanbi Dada. The 1st and 2nd Defendants were alleged by the Respondent, as Plaintiff, to have sold a large piece or parcel of land including the portion in dispute to the Plaintiff. They (1st and 2nd Defendants) did not file a Statement of Defence in the action and later died in the course of the proceedings leaving the 3rd Defendant as the sole Defendant in the action. There is no doubt that the original 1st and 2nd Defendants sold a large piece or parcel of land to the Respondent and executed a conveyance in his favour dated 21/9/77 which was tendered and admitted in the proceedings as Exhibit D. It is the case of the Respondent that after the conveyance of the land, he took possession of same and exercised maximum acts of ownership thereon including the letting out of portion thereof to tenants for farming purposes and the sale and grant of leaseholds to others without let or hindrance except on 4/5/83 when the Defendant raised a caution on certificate of occupancy LUD6/R/1261 with plan No. FN2934C of 9/7/81 in respect of a portion of the land in dispute. The Respondent also pleaded in paragraphs 26 and 26a of the Further Amended Statement of Claim as follows:-

The Appellant denied that the land in dispute forms part of the land of the original 1st and 2nd Defendants though he admits that the Defendants are related and own different portions of land in the area including the land in dispute. The Appellant also contended that he was not aware of the sale of the land to the Respondent by the original 1st and 2nd Defendants until much later and further that the portion in dispute belongs to him, not the 1st and 2nd Defendants. It is important to note that in paragraph 1 of the Further Amended Statement of Defence the Appellant denied the facts pleaded in paragraphs 26 and 26(a) as reproduced supra, among other paragraphs of the Further Amended Statement of Claim. As stated earlier at the conclusion of trial, the learned trial Judge dismissed the action of the Plaintiff on the ground that the land for which the Plaintiff sought declaration has not been sufficiently identified. The Court of Appeal, however, set aside that finding and granted the reliefs earlier reproduced in this judgment.