CaseLaw
Sule V. Aina (1985) CLR 4(b) (SC)
Brief
Facts
The appellant in his pleadings claim ownership of the entire land in a plan Exh. A. which he tendered in evidence and claimed not only that the land was inherited from their ancestor Olakoru but that the respondents were put on the land by them as customary tenants. Although the respondents (defendants in trial court) did not counter claim for title, the substance of the defence was a claim having, as they claim, inherited the land from their own ancestor Osidana. It is also pertinent to mention that in their plan Exh: B, the area in respect of which they joined issue with the appellant verged green is only a portion of the whole area verged red and claimed by the appellant: they too claimed that they put the appellant’s people on the land in dispute, which must in effect be limited to the area verged green in Exh. B. as customary tenants.
After hearing evidence, Sogbetun, J. dismissed the claim of the appellant for trespass and injunction on the ground that by their pleadings and evidence, the appellant put the respondents in possession of the land. He granted a declaration of title however in respect of the whole land Exh. A. The respondents appealed to the Court of Appeal which in a unanimous and well considered judgment allowed the appeal in respect of the area verged green in Exh. B dismissing the appellant’s claim thereto, but granted a non-suit in respect of the rest of the land in Exh. A.
The plaintiffs thus appeal to the Supreme Court.