Compulaw - 1st Indigenous Digital Law Library

Brief

Concurrent finding of fact
Declaration of title to land

Facts

The Plaintiff said the land in dispute measuring about 200 feet by 6700 feet was the farm land of his grand father one Abdullahi Olokotintin. That the land devolved on him through his line of ancestors namely Abdullahi Olokotintin and Iliyasu Olokotintin the Plaintiff's father. He said he has been farming on the disputed land.

The Defendants on the other hand said the land in dispute was given to their grand father Ologbondoko by Abdul Salami a one time Emir of Ilorin as a reward of his gallantry and valour during the Ikoko war. That after the death of Ologbondoko, the land devolved on his children including Ahmadu, the first Defendant's father. Thereafter the land devolved on the first Defendants herein who is the present head of the family. That his family have since been exercising acts of ownership on the land. The Defendants also contended that the land in dispute was adjudged to belong to their family by the IIorin High Court in suit No- KWS/8A/84 on 19th, October, 1988 and that the Plaintiff is estopped form relitigating the matter. At the close of the case for the parties the Court in the presence of the respective parties visited the locus in quo. The parties thereafter submitted written addresses to the Court. In a reserved judgment the learned trial Judge after a careful evaluation of the evidence led before him dismissed the Plaintiff's claim in their entirety. The record clearly shows that the Plaintiff's claims were dismissed on two main grounds as follows-

1
Want of sufficient and credible evidence. The learned trial Judge in his judgement on page 116 of the record said- "In this case I find as a fact when weighing evidence of the Plaintiff with that of defence I find the evidence of the Plaintiff is so scanty and very unconvincing as to prove ownership of the land in dispute as to establish the case of trespass..............................."
2
Res Judicata On page 119 of the record the learned trial Judge held thus- "I have carefully perused the descriptions of the disputed land given by both parties and have been to the locus in quo and found that the land in dispute is the same with the one as determined in Exhibit Dl. The description ofP.W.3 and that of Defendant are almost the same and I have no doubt it is the same land as rightly contended by defence counsel...........Having so hold as above, I am of the strong view that according to the evidence before me I hold that the land in dispute between the parties herein has been adjudged upon by the High Court IIorin, in its appellate jurisdiction in its judgment delivered on 19/10/88 and that the doctrine of res judicata applies in this ease."

Dissatisfied with the judgment of the trial High Court, the Plaintiff appealed to the Court of Appeal, holden at Kaduna. In a reserved judgment the Court of Appeal unanimously dismissed the Plaintiff's appeal. This time however the appeal was dismissed only on one of the two grounds above. That is on the ground of lack of credible and sufficient evidence to prove the case as held by the trial Court above. Still dissatisfied, the Plaintiff further appealed to the Supreme Court.

Issues

Whether or not the Court of Appeal was right in dismissing the Plaintiffs claim...

Olokotintin V. Sarumi (2003) CLR 7(j) (SC)

Judgement delivered on July 12th 2002

Brief

Facts

Issues