CaseLaw
Oladipupo V. Olaniyan (2000) 1(d) (CA)
Brief
Facts
The appellants' claimed against the respondents damages in the sum of N25, 000.00 for trespass to their land by the respondents or in the alternative an order of forfeiture of the respondents' family customary tenancy in respect of the land being at Oke-Odo Itosi, Gboreke, Glundungbun via Ilora in Afijio Local Government of Oyo State.:
The appellants traced their claim to the land to one Taiwo Aridiogo who was a tenant to Ogunyemi Are Onibon, father of the 1sat appellant, from tike immemorial. After the death of Taiwo Aridiogo his children succeeded his tenancy under Ogunyemi Are-Onibon. On the death of Ogunyemi the land devolved on his children, particularly the 1st appellant who allowed the children of Taiwo Aridiogo to continue with the tenancy paying the usual Isakole of yams, maize, palm oil, etc. Sooko Adio, one of the children of Taiwo brought one Adegbanke to live on the farm. Olaniyan Adegbanke the 1st respondent, the son of Adegbanke and one Odunso, father of the 4th respondent also lived on the land. As a result of the resistance of the 1st appellant to grant land to someone at the instance of Akibio of Ilora, members of the Elewure family lodged series of reports to the police. The Elewure family trespassed on the land by harvesting the crops on the land and even taking a surveyor to the land.
The 1st-3rd respondents on their part denied being trespassers on the land. They traced their right o the t land to their ancestor Folawiyo, a warrior, who settled thereon from time immemorial. They asserted that their own land is separated from that of the 1st appellant by a land and a stream. As for Sooko they said it was Elwuere family that allowed his family to continue as tenants, after Adegbanke, the father of the 1st respondent brought him to the land.
At the hearing of the case witnesses gave evidence for the parties which the trial court evaluated. After considering the addresses of counsel the trial court found the appellants' case not proved and hold inter alia, that the appellants have not shown that respondents are trespassers; have not shown by conclusive evidence that the respondents are 1st appellant's tenants; and have not even shown to be in exclusive possession of the area alleged to be in dispute. It thereby dismissed the suit.
Dissatisfied, the appellants appealed to the Court of Appeal.