It can be noted from the final claims of the Plaintiffs that the relief of damages for trespass has been abandoned while the terms of the perpetual injunction are very uncertain. It should always be noted that the law is settled that the statement of claim supercedes the writ of summons and that any relief claimed in the writ of summons but not mentioned/claimed in the statement of claim is deemed abandoned and can therefore not be granted at the conclusion of trial if the Plaintiff succeeds. Learned Counsel should therefore be careful when drafting the reliefs in the statement of claim.

However, it is the case of the Plaintiffs/Appellants that the land in dispute was granted to Kehinde Eya after the death of Solanke who inherited same from Odebi, one of the children of lkuoloko, the original owner in possession of a vast expanse of land as his share. At all time material to the action, the entire land was not partitioned among the descendants of Kehinde Eya; that Kehinde Eya's family gave permission to Lolade (one of the descendants of Kehinde Eya and its head at the material time) to sell an acre of the family land to Alhaji Bello Qudus, the original 1st Respondent to settle some financial indebtedness as shown in Exhibit A, while the remaining land was intact. It is the contention of the Appellants that three days after the death of Lolade, the original 1st Respondent approached the Appellants and informed them that late Lolade had sold the land in dispute, which is eleven acres to him and wanted the Appellants to sign an agreement to that effect which they refused to do. Later on the Appellants found two building foundations on the land constructed by the original 1st Respondent which resulted in the institution of the action.

It is however the case of the Respondents that the original 1st Respondent bought two parcels of land from the Appellants' family at different times, the first being directly from Lolade at about 1965 which was for twenty acres as evidenced in Exhibit G while the other was in 1972 of eleven acres after the death of Lolade; that the 2nd purchase was from the Plaintiffs as evidenced in Exhibit F. Lolade is said to have died in 1970. It is the contention of the Respondents that the 1st and 2nd Appellants witnessed the sale of 1972 by thump printing the agreement after all formalities were duly complied with. It is also the contention of the Respondents that the original 1st Respondent was led into possession immediately after the sale and had remained in same letting and selling plots of the land to tenants thereof.

At the conclusion of the trial, the learned trial Judge dismissed the case of the Appellants which resulted in an appeal before the Ibadan Division of the Court of Appeal in appeal No. CA/I/75/93 which was dismissed by the Court. The present appeal is therefore a further appeal by the Appellants.