The plaintiff seeks against the 1st, 3rd to 5th defendants a declaration of title in fee simple, absolute or alternatively according to Yoruba Native Law and Custom to all that piece or parcel of land situate at Obele Kolade, between Odunsi Street and Oseni Street, Surulere.

The amended writ of summons was filed on the 26th day of November, 1975 pursuant to an order of court made on 24th November, 1975. The case itself originated in a Lagos High Court in March, 1972. Then there were two defendants to the plaintiff’s action, one Sunmola Amola 1st defendant and one Joseph Adeyemi 2nd defendant.

Pleadings were ordered on 8/5/72 by Kazeem J Pursuant to this order the plaintiff filed a Statement of Claim on 7/7/72 I need not say more about this document since it was amended more than once later in the course of the proceedings in this case. The 2nd defendant, Joseph Adeyemi settled with the plaintiff. The plaintiff then moved for and got judgment on 23/10/72 against him as per the terms of settlement agreed upon by them. Nothing turns on this judgment in this appeal so I will say no more about it.

By an application dated 27/10/72 the 1st defendant Sunmola Amola moved for the following relief.

The prayers were granted on 28th November, 1972 by Adedipe J Pursuant to this order the 1st defendant filed a Statement of Defence on 21/10/72 which was subsequently amended more than once The 3rd to the 5th defendants became parties to these proceedings by this order of court. They for their part filed a Statement of Defence. To this Statement of Defence the plaintiff filed with leave of court, a reply.

The plaintiff failed to prove his claim and the trial judge gave judgment to the defendant, dismissed the plaintiff’s claim and disposed the 6th defendant of title to the disputed land on the grounds that the plaintiff had no better title than the 1st defendant and cannot transfer anything to the 6th defendant, and that since the 1st defendant had always been in factual possession of the land before his possession was challenged, he should stay on in possession. The plaintiff and the 6th defendant dissatisfied with the judgment appealed to the Court of Appeal unsuccessfully.

The plaintiff/appellant has now appealed to the Supreme Court.