Compulaw - 1st Indigenous Digital Law Library

CaseLaw

Olowosago & Ors. V. Adebanjo & Ors. (1988) CLR 9(e) (SC)

Judgement delivered on September 29th 1988

Brief

Pleadings
Issues for determination
Impartial Judge
Deed (Who can sue on)
Interpretation of documents
Family Propert
Declaration of title to land

Facts

The appellants were the defendants in the High Court of Lagos State and the respondents the plaintiffs to 13 the suit claiming:

1
a declaration of title In fee simple to all that piece or parcel of land situate, lying along Lagos Ikorodu Road, Ikorodu, Lagos which land is more particularly shown and delineated by beacon No.WN.2722 & WN.2723 respectively same marked red in plan No. L & L/CB.21 registered with Deed of grant dated 28th day of December, 1959 and registered as No. 17 at page 17 in Volume 358 of the Land Registry at Ibadan;
2
Possession of the said land;
3
"Perpetual injunction restraining the defendants, their servants and/or agents from entering the said land".

The claim was later amended (see page 83) to read as follows:

1
a declaration that the plaintiffs are entitled to a statutory right of occupancy or in the alternative a customary right of occupancy in respect of all that piece or parcel of land situate along Lagos Ikorodu Road, Ikorodu, Lagos State which land is now particularly shown and delineated by beacon No. WN.2722 and WN.2723 respectively same marked RED in plan No.L& LCB.21 registered the Deed of grant dated 28th day of December, 1959 and registered as No. 17 page 17 Volume 358 of the Land Registry, Ibadan;
2
Possession of the said land;
3
Perpetual injunction restraining the defendant, his agent or servants and privies from repeating or continuing the acts of trespass to the said piece or parcel of land.

After hearing evidence and addresses of counsel, the learned trial Judge, (Desalu, J.) dismissed all the three arms of the claim in their entirety.

The facts in brief, are as follows: the land in dispute formerly formed part of the land owned by one Aige, a Yoruba man and native of or an indigene of Ikorodu, Lagos State under customary law or native law and custom. On his death intestate, the property devolved on his children as family property. At some time later, the family decided to partition the family property at Aige family and allotted the land in dispute to one of the descendants of Aige by name Chief T.K. Dada. After his death, the family conveyed by deed of grant the said parcel of land to:

1
Efuneye
2
Aliatu Amope
3
Omoyeni Aduke
4
Olaniwun Tanimowo
5
Muniratu.
6
Kehinde Muyibatu
7
Oyebanjo
8
Ore-Olorun

All of Ikorodu then in Western Nigeria now in Lagos State. They were the children and grandchildren of Chief T. K. Dada. The Deed of grant is in evidence as Exhibit A. The land in dispute was subsequently sold and conveyed B by Orefela Dada, Idowu Folorunsho Dada and Jonathan Ayodele Dada, all descendants of Chief T.K. Dada to Chief Lamidi Dawodu, the appellant now deceased by Exhibit E, a Deed of Conveyance in evidence.

The learned trial Judge found that there was evidence (from the plaintiffs) that there were other children and grandchildren of Chief T. K. Dada who were not mentioned in Exhibit A. He therefore found that those other children and grandchildren acquired no interest in the land granted. The learned trial Judge observed that there was no averment in the statement of claim that the Aige family ever granted or allotted the land in dispute delineated on Exhibit A to Chief T.A. Dada.

The plaintiffs sued in a representative capacity for themselves and on behalf of the entire members of Oturadewun Tefojukan, Kutimoju Dada branch of Aige family. The learned trial Judge held that there was no evidence of relationship of the 2nd and 3rd plaintiff with Chief T.K. Dada. He found that the 1st plaintiff is the son of one Efuneye, one of the grantees.

The plaintiffs/respondents predicated their claim on Exhibit A and from the content of Exhibit A, the parcel of land granted was to the named grantees. Their heirs and assigns in fee simple. It was not to the grantees for themselves and the entire members of Chief T.K. Dada's branch of Aige family. The learned trial Judge therefore dismissed the claim. The plaintiffs then appealed to the Court of Appeal and succeeded.

Issues

The main issue raised for determination is one of locus standi. Have the...

CaseLaw

Olonade V. Sowemimo (2014) CLR 5(j) (SC)

Judgement delivered on May 16, 2014

Brief

Ground Of Appeal
Reversal Of Judgment
Evaluation Of Evidence
Concurrent Findings Of Facts

Facts

This is an appeal against the judgment of the Ibadan Division of the Court of Appeal, hereinafter referred to as the court below, affirming the decision of the Ogun State High Court, here in after referred to as the trial court. The judgment of the court below being appealed against was delivered on 28 day of May, 2003. The trial court's decision the court below affirmed was delivered on 29 July, 1998. The facts of the case that brought about the appeal are as herein under summarized.

The appellants as plaintiffs at the trial court, for themselves and on behalf of the Ijesha Community of Abeokuta, sued the respondent who, in addition to being the defendant, also counter-claimed for himself and on behalf of the Joseph Sowemimo Family. Appellants' claim as contained in paragraph 35 of their further amended statement of claim is for forfeiture, declaration of title, damages and injunction. Respondent's counter claim is for declaration of title, damages and perpetual injunction in respect of the same piece of land to which appellants' claim relates. The appellants testified and called four other witnesses in support of their case. They also tendered one document. In defense of the case and proof of his counter-claim, the respondent testified and called six witnesses. He tendered thirteen exhibits, three of which were through PW6, the first appellant.

Plots No. 82 and 86 along Sokenu Road at Oke Ijeun in Abeokuta are in contention between the parties. The appellants assert that the plots form part of the land granted by the Egbas to Ijesha people led by their ancestor Adeleke; that after the grant to them by the Egbas, the Ijeshas have continued to exercise various acts of ownership in relation to the parcel granted to them which acts include grants to many people with respondent's father, Sowemimo, being one such beneficiary. The grant made to Sowemimo by the appellants' ancestors is under customary tenancy.

It is also appellants' case that respondent's father had built two houses on the land in dispute and, contrary to the terms of the tenancy between them, abandoned the two plots. This explains the re-entry into the land by the Ijesha people who thereafter let the two plots to one Alhaji Saubane Olaogun, the Asiri Abo. The said Olaogun has developed the two plots and rents same out to tenants on behalf of the Ijesha Community.

In a considered decision, the trial court found that the Ijeshas were not the original owners of the land in dispute and that Sowemimo, respondent's father, had built his two houses on the land in dispute which he acquired from the Ijeuns long before the settlement of the Ijesha Community in Abeokuta. The court further held that there couldn't have been any customary tenancy, therefore, between the Ijeshas and respondent's father. Consequently, the court dismissed appellants' claim and granted respondent's counter claim in part. It is the dismissal of the plaintiffs appeal against this decision of the trial court by the court below that brought about the appeal to which this judgment relates.

Issues

1
Whether the Justices of the Court of Appeal were not wrong or committed...