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:

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

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:

Defendant stated further that at a point in time, the Plot Allotment Committee in the area tried to encroach on his land so he went before the Oba and made a report. That the Oba called up the Ogidas to the Palace and when the matter was looked into, the Oba decided in his favour. He tendered a written decision of the Oba as Exhibit 'H'. He later obtained a Deed of Conveyance, Exhibit 'E' registered as No.14 at page 14 in Volume 15 of the Lands Registry in the Office at Benin City.

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

Popoola V. State (2018) CLR 2(h) (SC)

Judgement delivered on 23rd day of February, 2018

Brief

Interpreter of statement
Evidence
Burden and Onus of proof
Standard of proof in Criminal Cases
Manslaughter
Section 316 Criminal Code
Murder
Accident
Evaluation of evidence
Section 319 of the Criminal Code 2000
Section 316 of the Criminal Code
Section 91 (a) of the Evidence Act
Section 91 (b) of the Evidence Act
Section 135 of the Evidence Act

Facts

This is an appeal from a decision of the Court of Appeal, lbadan Judicial Division upholding the conviction of the appellant by an lbadan High Court for an offence against Section 319 of the Criminal Code.

For the sake of clarity, the section under which the appellant was charged and convicted may be set out as follows:

That you Bashiru Popoola on or about 8 April, 2007 at Alakia Area, Egbeda lbadan murdered Solomon Adeyemi and thereby committed a Criminal Offence punishable under Section 319 of the Criminal Code Law Cap 38, Laws of Oyo State, 2000.

On 21 May, 2008, the appellant pleaded not guilty to a one count charge of murder contrary to Section 319 of the Criminal Code. lshola J. Presided.

In the course of trial, the prosecution called six witnesses. The appellant testified in his defence. He did not call any witness. A total of sixteen documents were tendered and admitted as exhibits, marked: Exhibits A B C D E F- F4 G3 ;H.

Written addresses were adopted by both sides on 1 June 2016, and on 8 October, 2010, the learned trial judge found the appellant guilty as charged: the concluding part of the judgment reads:

In the result that I hold that the prosecution through credible evidence has proved its case against the accused person beyond reasonable doubt. I hereby find the accused person guilty of the murder of Solomon Adeyemi and he is accordingly convicted."

Dissatisfied with the judgment of the trial Court the appellant lodged an appeal. It was heard by the Ibadan Division of the Court of Appeal. That Court affirmed the conviction and sentence of death passed on the appellant by the trial Court. The concluding paragraph of the judgment of the Court of Appeal reads:

"l am satisfied that the trial judge was right in his judgment in finding the appellant guilty of the murder of the deceased. I hereby affirm the judgment and therefore dismiss the appeal."

This appeal is against that judgment.

Issues

1
Taking into consideration the tendering of Exhibits C and D by the...