CaseLaw
Olasunde V. Oladele (1991) CLR 7(a) (CA)
Brief
Facts
The appellant’s case was that parcel B in the land in dispute which was also shown in Exhibit “A” and which was smaller than parcel A in the same survey plan (Exhibit “A”), was granted by Laamo to Odunbaku and Laniya. Olota, Odunbaku and Laniya took possession of their respective parcels of land and farmed thereon. On their death the said parcels of land were inherited by members of their respective families. About sixteen years ago, Olota family, in the presence of witnesses, sold the larger parcel of land (parcel A) in the presence of witnesses to one Surar Yusuff (p.w.5) who two years later sold it, also in the presence of witnesses, to the appellant. About the same time Odunbaku and Laniya families, in the presence of witnesses, sold the smaller parcel of land in the land in dispute (parcel B in Exhibit “A”) to the appellant.
The evidence led by the respondent, in support of this case, was that the whole land (parcel A and B in Exhibit A) was part of the land granted by Laamo Sangoteru Olota at Elelu village. Sangoteru Olota had many children, including the father of one Ganiyu Aganga. The said Olota had other parcels of land. During his lifetime, the said Olota shared his land among his children and the land in dispute went to the father of Ganiyu Aganga. Ganiyu Aganga inherited it after his father’s death. Ganiyu Aganga sold part of it to the respondent in 1958 and sold the other part of it to him (the respondent) in 1962.
The learned trial Judge, Olowofeyoku, J., after giving due consideration to the evidence before him and to the submissions of the learned counsel for each of the parties, accepted the traditional evidence led by the appellant and rejected the evidence led by the respondent that Ganiyu Aganga (d.w.5) was a member of Olota family and that he had the right to sell the land in dispute to the respondent. He held that the appellant was entitled to the whole land in dispute but limited his order granting title and injunction to the appellant to a portion of the land in dispute because the plea of laches and acquiescence relied upon by the respondent succeeded in relation tom the other portion of the land in dispute not affected by the aforesaid order. The judgment is at pages 92 to 110 of the record of proceedings.
Dissatisfied with the judgment of the learned trial Judge, the appellant appealed and the respondent has cross-appealed against it to this court.
Issues
Whether, in the instant case, the trial judge misdirected himself in law in...