CaseLaw
Ogundoyin V. Aderemi (2001) CLR 7(q) (SC)
Judgement delivered on Aderemi (2001) CLR 7(q) (SC)
Brief
Facts
The Plaintiff/Respondent’s Case The Respondent of Laojo Family of Oyan, brought this action in a representative capacity laying claim over the land in dispute between the parties at Aje farm in Oyan more appropriately described and set out in Survey Plan No. OG 5/85 drawn by S Akin Ogunbiyi, Licensed Surveyor.
That it was granted to Ademota and Ajiboye, the ancestors of the plaintiff by their father Oba Olusunle over two hundred years ago. The ancestors of the Plaintiff Respondent took possession and started to cultivate it. The descendants of the ancestors thereafter inherited the land in dispute.
The Defendants/Appellants Case For the Defendants/Appellants, the facts of the case were as follows, Their claim was that the land in dispute and the land allegedly granted to them (Appellants) was owned by them as clearly reflected or described in the Survey Plan No. GCS/278/OY 85 produced and drawn by Bode Adeaga, Licensed Surveyor. The land, they contended was settled upon by one Olagbemisoye, their ancestor as virgin land about 250 years ago. Tracing their genealogy they asserted that Olagbemisoye begat Esorun, Adebiyi and Ogundoyin their ancestor, adding that other members of their family farmed on the land, adding that when in 1974, Saliu Oriade made a demand for N12.80 for Ishakole from Ogundoyin but Ogundoyin denied liability. Oriade thereupon instituted an action against Ogundoyin. Ogundoyin, it was explained granted a portion of his land to the respondent because they were in laws.
Ipon stream, it was argued is the natural boundary between the Respondent and the Appellants. It was the Appellants contention that the Respondent belonged to Obatire joye family and not Laojo. The Appellants removed five palm trees which were their own on their farm.
The learned trial Judge in a considered judgment granted only the declaration sought by the respondent while dismissing the relief for damages for trespass and injunction.
Appellants dissatisfied filed an Appeal. The appeal was dismissed for want of diligent prosecution.
Issues
Whether the Court of Appeal had judicially, judiciously and properly...