TThe land in dispute which is alleged to have been trespassed upon is situate and lying in Ojoku town of Kwara State. According to the evidence before the trial court, it was very clear that both the appellant and the respondent have been in possession of part of the land. It is also evident that both parties have at different times in the past made pants of the portions of the land to individuals and group of persons or authorities. For example the appellant pleaded and led evidence to prove how his family granted portions of land where Ojoku Town Hall, the Ojoku Grammar School and low cost housing scheme were built It was however significant to observe that the Lands on which these projects were carried out were not part of the land now in dispute between the parties. In proof of their claims to the possession of the land in dispute, each party proffered and relied upon traditional evidence. The respondent’ s case was that his family (the Ojoku family) headed by the Olojoku of Ojoku is the traditional owner of the entire Ojoku land including the land in dispute and that it was the ancestors of the Olojoku family who founded the entire Ojoku land and settled there first. The appellant’s case was that their ancestors founded the Ojoku town itself and that the respondents family met them on the Ojoku land 100 years later. The respondents family were forced on the appellant’s family when the Ilorin Fulanis enthroned the respondent as Baale Ojoku. The appellant also testified that the Oyun Local Government of Kwara State had on two occasions mediated in the dispute between the parties on the land in question and on both occasions, the Oyun Local Government settled the dispute and ruled that the land belonged to the appellant. And when in 1980 after the mediation, the respondent’s family members disturbed the peaceful enjoyment of the land by the appellant, the former were arrested by the police, prosecuted and convicted of criminal trespass by the magistrates Court in Offa. Evidence of the mediations by the Oyun Local Government on the land in dispute and the Offa Magistrates Court proceedings are admitted as Exhibits Dl, D2 and D3, at the trial. The contention of the appellant is that these exhibits constitute estoppel per rem judicatam or issue estoppel against the respondent’s action.

The trial judge entered judgment in favour of the plaintiff. The court of appeal upheld the decision of the trial court. The appellant has further appealed to the Supreme Court