Disable Preloader

CaseLaw

Gbadamosi V. Dairo (2007) CLR 1(a) (SC)

Judgement delivered on January 26th 2007

Brief

  • Concurrent finding of fact
  • Evaluation of evidence
  • Fair hearing
  • Declaration of title to land
  • Identity of land in dispute
  • Fresh point of law

Facts

The Plaintiff/Respondent claimed against the Defendant declaration of title, special and general damages and injunction. The Defendant/Appellant in his Amended Statement of Defence and Counter¬claim also counter-claim for declaration of title, special and general damages and injuntion.

The Respondent's case on the pleadings and the evidence is that the land in dispute is a portion of a larger tract of land at Olojuoro area of Ibadan belonging to the Aleshinloye Family, The Respondent Purchased The Land In Dispute From One Dorcas Ajirinnibi Amao under native law and custom. The land was handed over to him in the presence of witnesses and eventually the vendor executed a deed of conveyance in his favour which was registered as No.50 at page 50 in volume 2278 of Ibadan land's Registry. As mentioned above, the land claimed by the Respondent was part of a larger tract of land which was the subject Matter Of A Court Action In Suit No.1/228/64 Between The Aleshinloye Family As The Plaintiffs And One Chief S.B. Adewumi As The Defendant. The Aforesaid Suit Was Resolved by a compromise between the parties, by which Exhibit “A” in these proceedings conveys the position of the parties.

The Plaintiffs in the action withdrew it. The terms of settlement were that in consideration of payment made by Adewumi of "N15,000.00 117 acres out of the total land in dispute measuring 137 acres were to go to him whilst 20 acres were to be retained by Alesinloye family. P.W 1 was one of the members of Alesinloye family who shared out of the twenty acres and he sold his portion of it to diverse purchasers including Dorcas Ajirinnibi who sold the land in dispute to the Respondent. That part of the land bought by the Respondent is at the northern end of the land in dispute in Suit. No. 1/228/64 and is the land in dispute in this action. It was the case of the Respondent that the parcel of land he purchased from Dorcas Ajirinnibi consisted of two plots, he made the purchase in 1977 and a deed of conveyance was granted to him in 1978. He immediately cleared the land and let his friend a motor mechanic into one of the plots and commenced building on one of the plots, He engaged P.W. 3., who was also one of the purchasers of the Aleshinloye family land in the area, as a contractor to erect buildings for him. He stopped the building operation sometime later 1978 due to financial constraint. The building reached lintel level and there was 6000 blocks on the land when he suspended the building operation. The Respondent claimed that it was in 1980 when the Appellant came and destroyed the Respondent's building and carted away or destroyed the blocks.

For the Appellant, his case was that he bought the land in dispute from Adewumi and after completing payment he caused a wall fence two feet high to be built round the land. The land consisted of plots 16 and 17 of the ADEWUMI LAYOUT anti that he sold plot 16 to Alhaji Afolabi (the intervener). In 1980 when he wanted to commence building, he found the land overgrown with weeds and on clearing, he found that his 2ft wall fence had been pulled down. He then had the land bulldozed and commenced building on the land.

The learned trial Judge rightly in my view settled the issue properly when at the beginning of his judgment he stated:-

  • "The issue to be decided is relatively simple, it is whether the land in dispute in this case properly belong to the Alesinloye family or to Chief Adewumi arising from the terms of settlement reported in Exhibit "A" before the same was sold to the different purchasers who are the disputants in this action."

As mentioned above, the learned trial Judge found for the Respondent and dismissed the counter-claim of the Appellant.

Dissatisfied, Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. The Appellant appealed to the Supreme Court

Issues

  • 1.
    "Whether the Court below has not erred in law and came to the wrong...
    Read More