The Root of Title pleaded by each plaintiff was sale by the Olayalo family the traditional owners of the land. This sale was in each case covered by a Conveyance in English form as pleaded in paragraphs 10 and 11 of the Amended Statement of Claim. In addition to the Sale and Conveyance pleaded, the 1st plaintiff pleaded in paragraph 14(a) of the Statement of claim payment of compensation for his crops on the land in dispute by the Ministry of Works etc during the construction of the Agodi Water Supply pipe line. And in paragraph 14(c) both Plaintiffs pleaded that they together with Chief D E A Oguntoye who owned A.1 an adjacent piece of land, laid out the land in dispute and named it Ore meta Layout .Ex F.
The Defendants denied in paragraph 30 of their Statement of Defence that the land in dispute ever belonged to the plaintiffs vendors and in paragraph 31 the Defendants pleaded that the Plaintiffs have never at any time taken possession either physical or otherwise of the land in dispute The case of the Defendants as pleaded in paragraph 5 of their Statement of Defence was that the entire area verged Red on plan No. MAY 228/77 (tendered as Ex K) was granted to Beyioku Iseke, the great ancestor of the 1st 3rd 4th and 5th defendants by Efun, one of the great Ibadan warriors The area the plaintiffs are claiming is verged green in Ex K After this customary grant by Efun after the Ijaiye war, the Defendants ancestors and predecessors in title went into effective possession as pleaded in paragraph 9 of the Statement of Defence In paragraphs 10 and 19, the Defendants pleaded their genealogy and descent from Beyioku.
From the pleadings of both sides, the following will emerge
-
1.
There is no dispute about the land in dispute. It is common ground that the area verged Red and Blue in Ex A is the area the Plaintiffs are claiming the same area is verged green in Defendants plan ex K and designated Area in dispute.
-
2.
The vital issue arising from the pleadings of the parties is the ownership of the area is dispute.
-
3.
Were the plaintiffs vendors the owners of the parcels of land they purported to convey to the Plaintiffs?
-
4.
Was there a customary grant of the land in dispute by Efun to Beyioku the ancestors of the Defendants?
-
5.
That the conditions of Appeal given and the perfection of such conditions were based on the Notice and Grounds of Appeal filed on 28/2/86, which Notice was filed without leave of either the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court.
-
6.
Have the Defendants and their predecessor in title remained in effective possession of the land in dispute after the customary grant by Efun as pleaded by them?
-
These were the live issues arising from the pleadings of the parties that the Courts below had to decide.
After due hearing the learned trial judge Ige, J found and held as followss
-
1.
On examination of the traditional history given in evidence by both alleged original owners as to how they came to own the land in dispute, none of them is readily conclusive
-
2.
I prefer the evidence of the 3rd Plaintiffs witness the 4th the 5th the 7th that at one time or the other the plaintiffs had 2nd Defendant as their care taker for protecting their interest on the land in dispute
-
3.
I am of the firm belief that the second Defendant received compensation for his own crops, which were damaged during the Asejire Dam construction.
-
4.
There is no doubt that the Beyioku family have land at Akoka area as can be seen in Ex K. But whether the land granted to Beyioku by Efun extended to the land in dispute is an issue to be resolved by the Court by reference to recent facts.
-
5.
The plaintiffs vendors are definitely members of Olayalo family.
-
6.
The Plaintiffs and their vendors had been undisturbed in their possession of the land in dispute one after the other until 1975 when the Defendants came to the land to drive them away.
-
7.
The plaintiffs have exercised several acts of ownership on the land such as making a layout and claiming compensation from Government for crops destroyed on the land.
-
8.
I do not believe the evidence of the Defendants grantees who have been farming on the land that they had been farming on the land in dispute and yet they did not hear of Olayalo’s family or the plaintiffs layout.
-
9.
I believe and find as a fact that the 3rd plaintiff witness’s family had title in the land in dispute which they rightly passed on to the two plaintiffs in this case by the four different Deeds of conveyance, exhibits B, C D and F between 1958 and 1977 the fact that the Deeds of Conveyance were not executed in Olayalo’s family name is not in issue in this case.
-
10.
In this case I hold that the plaintiffs have established their actual possession of the land in dispute and the Defendants having gone on the land in 1975 and driven away the first plaintiff had trespassed on Plaintiffs land
Having believed the Plaintiffs and their witnesses and after the findings set out above, the learned trial judge gave judgement as follows:
-
1.
The two plaintiffs are the persons entitled to apply for certificates of occupancy for the land in dispute, which is edged Red and Blue respectively in plan No. AB 10365.
-
2.
N500.00 damages Jointly and severally against the first, second, third and fifth Defendants.
An injunction is hereby granted to restrain the first, second, third and fifth Defendants from going o the said land edged Red and Blue respectively in plan No. AB 10365.
The plaintiffs won in the Court of first instance and the Defendants lost.
The defendants appealed to the Court of Appeal, which allowed their appeal, set aside the judgment of the lower court, and dismissed the plaintiffs claims in their entirety with costs.
The plaintiff appealed to the Supreme Court.
