The Plaintiffs aver that they have at all materials times been in peaceful and undisturbed possession of the said land until the Defendants came to commit the acts of trespass complained about. The Defendants Nos. 1 to 7 are now trespassing on the Eastern side of the plaintiffs' land while the Defendants prevented and obstructed the Plaintiffs employed Surveyor while carrying on the survey of the land. Unless restrained, the Defendants have threatened and will continue further acts of trespass on the said land. Trial Judge, Sofolahan J. After hearing all the evidence before him based on the parties' pleadings came to the conclusion that:"……. It is clear from the findings that the plaintiffs are the true owners of the entire land edged red whilst the defendants are their customary tenants as shown in the area edged 'green' and 'blue' respectively (in Exhibit 20).

"…. and I accept the evidence of the plaintiffs on Isibo as the one who permanently settled on the land of his ancestors. The traditional evidence of the plaintiffs have been satisfactorily coupled with their acts of ownership and exercise of right".

After granting declaration of title as sought by the plaintiffs he also granted injunction against the defendants from further acts of trespass on the land in dispute.

He however refused to grant other prayers. This judgment led to the parties appealing to the Court of Appeal. It must be pointed out, however, that the learned trial judge though held the plaintiffs (now appellants) as the true owners of the land and that the defendants were their customary tenants, he was not sure of their mode of acknowledging overlordship to the plaintiffs by payment of "Ishakole" … was it by cash or crops or both? What was in evidence was that around 1919 when Oba Adedapo Ademole ascended the throne as Alake of Egbas he advised landowners to forsake taking "Ishakole" insofar as the tenants never misbehaved. But for certainty, learned trial judge found title for the plaintiffs.

It is therefore clear that the battle fought at the trial court was far from that of tenants in possession between the defendants and plaintiffs, but that of challenge by defendants of the title of the plaintiffs (now appellants).

Both parties were dissatisfied with the judgment and appealed to the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal held that because of the mix up in the order of Odede and Aso an ancestor of the appellants, their traditional history had collapsed and such their claim to title must fail. It also held that since the appellants did not establish the mode of Ishakole by which respondents acknowledged the overlordship of the appellants, they could not establish their claim as customary law lords. The court then allowed the respondents' appeal and dismissed the appellants' claim.

Appellants appealed to the Supreme Court.