n
CaseLaw
The substratum of the appellant/applicants' case was that the land in dispute came into their ownership by a disposition of the land (whether by sale or pledge - a matter hotly contested) to their predecessor-in-title Aboiyigbe, by one Okpako who supposedly came from the Respondents family, on a payment, by Aboiyigbe, to the said Okpako a sum of £6. The Applicants (from what can be gathered from the judgement of the Court of Appeal) claimed that Okpako sold the land to Abioyigbe while the Respondents claimed it was a pledge which Okpako had no right to make. Now, this Okpako, subsequent to the transaction, testified on oath before the District Officer, Mr. Harry Maddocks, in the proceedings, Suit No. 12/24 (said to be Exhibit B) and swore that he had no right to dispose of the land to Aboiyigbe; that he sold the land to Aboigbe on an erroneous belief that it belonged to his father and the Respondents' Narofia's ancestral father both of whom he had thought were related, a fact he later found to be wrong; and that on discovering the error he paid back the £6 by paying it into Sapele Native Court, on the orders of that Court, for the benefit of Aboiyigbe. The court of Appeal quoted the evidence of Okpako before Mr, Harry Maddocks as follows: