CaseLaw
Okene v Orianwo (1998) CLR 8(a) (CA). V. Adebanjo & Ors. (1988) CLR 9(e) (SC)
Brief
Facts
Both parties are descendants of a common ancestor whereupon a dispute arose over ownership of a piece of land known as “Ohia Otuloro”. Both parties filed separate suits which were later consolidated.
Respondents claimed that their common ancestor owned the disputed land and he had nine children out of whom five were minors. Their own ancestor, Wogozo, and three others were adults, while the ancestor of the appellants whose name they gave as Amadi was a minor.
They argued that under Ikwerre native law minors do not perform burial rites of their fathers and do not therefore inherit his property. This was however not pleaded by them. Their witnesses testified that after the death of their ancestor, his land was partitioned among his adult children which was how they inherited the disputed land through their own ancestor.
Appellants agreed that their ancestor had nine children but denied that Amadi was their own ancestor. Rather they claimed that the name of their own ancestor was Okene. It was stated by them that the last five children of their common ancestor including Okene were not minors and that all the children performed the burial rites and were therefore entitled to inherit. Their ancestor inherited the disputed piece of land.
Respondents claimed that the parcel of land in dispute was the portion of land their ancestor inherited while appellants stated that the land in dispute was only part of a larger parcel known as Ohia Otuloro. Both parties relied on various acts of possession.
The trial court found for the respondents and granted their claims. He dismissed the appellants’ claims. He declined to make any order as to whether the house of a member of the appellants’ family was on the respondents land on the ground that the relief was not sought by the respondents.
Dissatisfied both parties appealed and cross-appealed respectively.