n Compulaw - 1st Indigenous Digital Law Library
Disable Preloader

CaseLaw

Dr. Ogundalu V. Chief Macjob (2015) CLR 3(c) (SC)

Judgement delivered on March 6th 2015

Brief

  • Identity of land in dispute
  • Valid sale of land under Yoruba Customary law
  • Duty of trial Judge
  • Lease of land under Yoruba Customary Law
  • Order of forfeiture
  • Exercise of discretion by court
  • Declaration of title

Facts

This is an appeal from the decision of the Court of Appeal, (Ibadan Division) delivered on the 23rd day of November, 2004, which affirmed the decision of an Abeokuta High Court delivered on the 20th day of September, 1999. The respondent, as plaintiff sued the defendant/appellant on a 15 paragraph Amended Statement of claim for:

  • a
    A DECLARATION that the plaintiff is the person entitled to a statutory right of occupancy in respect of ALL THAT piece or parcel of land situate lying and being behind WAEC office Onikolobo Abeokuta.
  • b
    FORFEITURE on grounds of misconduct of any rights of interest in respect or any structure or structures held by the defendant on the said land.
  • c
    N50,000 damages for trespass committed by the defendant for going on to the plaintiffs land.
  • d
    AN ORDER OF PERPETUAL IN JUNCTION restraining the defendant his servants, agents, privies, from committing any further acts of trespass on the said land.

    • The defendant responded by filing a 29 paragraph amended statement of defence and 6 paragraph counter-claim.

    The defendant counter-claimed against the plaintiff as follows:

    • a
      A DECLARATION that the agreement reached between the plaintiff and defendant on 6th November, 1988 was an agreement to assign the land in dispute which land in dispute is verged BULE in Plan No. SOFG/06.001 (D)/96 drawn by S.O. Fajobi, Licensed Surveyor and Dated 8th February, 1996, and that the said agreement was not a leasehold.
    • b
      AN ORDER of specific performance compelling the plaintiff to execute or process the relevant title documents in favour of the defendant.
    • c
      AN ORDER of perpetual injunction restraining the plaintiff whether by himself, his servants, agents, privies from disturbing the possession of the counter-claimant in any way or manner whatsoever.

      • Finally the plaintiff filed a 20 paragraph reply to the amended statement of defence and 9 paragraph defence to counterclaim.

      Trial commenced on the 10th of December, 1997. The plaintiff and two other persons gave evidence in support of the plaintiffs pleadings, while the defendant, and three other persons gave evidence in defence of the suit, and in proof of the counter-claim. Seven documents were admitted as exhibits. In a considered judgment delivered on the 20th of September 1991, the learned trial judge gave judgment in favour of the plaintiff as follows:

      • 1
        Declaration that the plaintiff in entitled to a Statutory right of occupancy in respect of ALL THAT piece or parcel of land edged BLUE and RED situate, lying and being behind WAEC office, Onikolobo, Abeokuta.
      • 2
        Forfeiture on grounds of misconduct of the portion of the land now occupied by the defendant and sufficiently described in exhibit ‘3’ and therein edged BULE.
      • 3
        Injunction restraining the defendant, his privies, servants and agents from committing any further act of trespass on the land sufficiently described in exhibit 3 and therein edged BULE.

        • Trial commenced on the 10th of December, 1997. The plaintiff and two other persons gave evidence in support of the plaintiffs pleadings, while the defendant, and three other persons gave evidence in defence of the suit, and in proof of the counter-claim. Seven documents were admitted as exhibits. In a considered judgment delivered on the 20th of September 1991, the learned trial judge gave judgment in favour of the plaintiff as follows:

        The counter-claim was dismissed. The defendant/appellant was not satisfied with the judgment. He appealed.

        On the 23rd day of November, 2005 the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment of the High Court and dismissed the appeal with N5,000 costs against the appellant.

        This appeal is against that judgment.

Issues

  • 1
    Whether the sale or lease of the land in dispute was valid...

Read More