For the plaintiffs - that the claims should be granted by reason of the fact that the land in dispute belonged to the family of Esinja Ololokun which allotted it to a member of the family namely, one Titus Agboola - for him to erect a dwelling house and that without the knowledge and/or consent of the family, Titus Agboola purported to sell it to the defendant: that the said Titus Agboola had no legal right to divest the family of the radical title to the land by the conveyance to the de¬fendant; that the said purported sale conveyed no title to the defendant, it being null and void; that the said purported sale was a fundamental misconduct on the part of Titus Agboola for which he should incur a penalty of forfeiture of the land to the family; and that, in the premises, the family was entitled to recover possession of the land;

For the defendant - that the claims should be dismissed because the land in dispute was not family land but the personal property of Titus Agboola who sold it to defendant; that even if it was family land the claims should be refused because the family stood by and watched the defendant complete the original building on the land, resulting in a brand new house, without objection; that therefore it would be inequitable for the court to grant to the plaintiffs the discretionary remedies of a declaration of title, or an injunction, and that, in the premises, the claim for re¬covery of possession should be refused.

The trial Judge held for the plaintiffs.

Respondent appealed to the Federal Court of Appeal which reversed the decision. The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court.