The Military Governor, Western State v. Chief Afolabi Laniba & Anor (1974)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

A. G. IRIKEFE, J.S.C. 

On 16th October, the Commissioner of Lands, Western Region of Nigeria, took out an originating summons at the High Court, Ibadan, against the first and second claimants in this matter for a determination of the persons entitled to compensation in respect of that parcel of land shown and bordered in pink in PLAN No. OY 49 as per the government notice published in the Western Region of Nigeria Gazette No. 29 Volume 8 of 18th June, 1959.

The said land, with an are of 35.14 acres, lies and is situated in the Government Reservation Area of OYO, and was being acquired for public purposes by government under the Public Lands Acquisition Law (Cap. 105) Laws of Western Nigeria.

With the advent of the military regime at a later stage of these proceedings and the constitutional changes arising therefrom, an application was brought seeking an order substituting the Military Governor, Western State, for the Commissioner of Lands. The order sought was granted on 18th October, 1966. Before this, the two claimants had filed their respective statements of interest.

After a series of adjournments, evidence was taken in this matter by Adewale Thompson J, who at the end thereof, found in favour of the 1st claimants on the question raised in the originating summons thus:

“In the circumstances I make the following orders:

1. That I prefer the evidence of the traditional history of the 1st claimants to that of the 2nd claimants.
2. That I reject the evidence as to the grant to the 2nd claimant’s ancestor by Alafin Atiba on the ground

(a) That it is vague and inconclusive, and

(b) That there is palpable omission in the evidence as to the nature and terms of such grant.

3. That I accept the evidence of the grant by 1st claimants’ ancestor to the ancestor of the 2nd claimants on the ground that it is honest and credible and furthermore it amounts to a “declaration” against the occupational interest of the 1st claimants as to parts of the land in dispute, but which does not entitle the 2nd claimants to be deemed owners of the land under section 21 of the Public Lands Acquisition Law Cap. 105 L/W.N. as the contrary has been shown to the satisfaction of this Court.
4. That I accept the evidence of the 2nd claimants to the effect that they are entitled to compensation for the crops shown on Exhibits ‘B’ to ‘B4’.
5. That I reject the opposition of the 1st claimants to the payment of compensation for the crops to the 2nd claimants on the ground that it is baseless and misconceived.
6. That the 1st claimants are the parties entitled to compensation for the land in dispute.
7. That the 2nd claimants are the parties entitled to compensation for the crops enumerated on the land as shown on Exhibits ‘B’ to ‘B4’.
8. That I reject the finding as to ownership by the Oyo Southern District Council on the ground that the decision was not acceptable to the 1st claimants See Inyang Vs. Ession 2 F.S.C. 39. It is to be assumed that if the applicants regarded the decision as being of any value, they would not have proceeded by way of originating summons to determine ownership but would have paid compensation to the 2nd claimants.

9 That since the issue litigated on the statements of interest of the parties is one of ownership of the land, the 1st claimants are entitled to the cost of these proceedings which I fix at 200 guineas.”

Against the above decision, the 2nd claimants appealed to the Western State Court of Appeal on a number of grounds; but that on which that court based its decision complained:

“That the learned trial judge erred in law by wrongfully admitting and adopting the contents of “History of Yoruba” by Dr. Johnson and “History of Abeokuta” by A.K. Ajisafe and relying on them as evidence of traditional History in favour of the 1st claimant/respondent.”

In the course of its decision, the Western State Court of Appeal observed as follows:

“Now, in a case of this nature, where there are two rival claimants to a parcel of land for the purpose of compensation, it is the duty of each claimant to establish his title to the land as if he were plaintiff in a declaratory suit.

Each statement of interest is to be treated as if it were a statement of claim in a declaratory suit and neither statement of interest is to be treated as a statement of defence”.