Appellants (as plaintiffs) in a representative capacity sued the 1st - 5th respondents as defendants claiming damages for trespass committed on a parcel of land and an injunction restraining respondents from committing further trespass. The respondents counter-claimed. Both parties relied on different traditional history's.

Appellants argued that the Land in dispute was first settled upon by one Balogun Oderinlo who made a grant of a large parcel of land including the one in dispute to Delesolu who served under Oderinlo. Appellants said Delesolu married sikako and had a daughter Iwolawa who then married Lofintolu and they both had a child called morenikeji who was the progenitor of the appellants. Appellants said further that Delesolu granted absolutely his land at Aladun village to Iwolowa and her husband. That Land was said to incorporate the land in dispute. Morenikeji inherited all the land when his own parents died and the land has since remained in the possession of his descendants. It was also avered that when Delesolu died, his friend - Ojuolape-brought one Lajinfin to act as caretaker to Delesolu's estates. The appellants also relied on a Judgement given in suit No 1/641/84 between then and one Eniayowu as creating estoppel per rem judicatam against the respondents.

Respondents argued that while they are descendants of Delesolu, the appellants are not. The stated that Delesolu and Lajinfin were brothers of the same parents and both co-founded the land in dispute. According to them, Delesolu married on Igbayimike, the daughter of Oderinlo. There was no child of the marriage. Upon Delesolu's death, Lajinfin inherited Igbayimike in accordance with native law and custom. Lajifin had several children including two that Igbayimike gave him. Although the respondents traced their ancestry to Lajinfin, they said they call their family Delesolu in acknowledgment of the fact that he was the elder of the two brothers. Respondents also said that Eniayewu against whom the appellants got, Judgement in suit No 1/641/84 was not a member of the respondents family.

The respondents argued further that the appellants were initially tenants and later became Licensees of the respondents in respect of the Land.

The trial Judge dismissed the appellants claims and granted 2 of the 4 reliefs sought by the respondents. Appellants appealed against it while the respondents cross - appealed against part of it.