Chief Ayeni & Ors V. Joseph Dada & Ors (1978)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

FATAYI-WILLIAMS, J.S.C

In proceedings in Suit No. AK/45/62 commenced in the High Court of the former Western Nigeria sitting at Akure, the plaintiffs and three others (now appellants) claimed against the defendants and three others (now respondents) –

(1) the sum of 500pounds being special and general damages for trespass committed on the piece of land at Ikoro Gero, Ondo Province, Western Nigeria sometime in August 1961 belonging to and in possession of the plaintiffs;

(2) an injunction restraining the Defendants from entering the said land and committing further acts of trespass.

In their amended Statement of Claim, the first plaintiff (the Odofin of Ikoro) averred that he is a subordinate Chief to the Onikoro of Ikoro who is also subordinate to the Ajero of Ijero in Ekiti Division. With respect to the land in dispute he averred in paragraphs 11 to 22 of the amended Statement of Claim as follows:-

11. The land in dispute is situate at Kanga Stream near Ajidun Village in Ekiti Division and it is the area edged YELLOW on Plan attached to my original Statement of Claim.
12. The land in dispute which originally formed part of Onikoro of Ikoro’s land (within Ijero District) was granted under native law and custom to Odofin family (Plaintiffs’ ancestor) by Onikoro of Ikoro many many years ago before the Okemesi came to settle in the place known as Okemesi today.
13. Every member of Odofin family who becomes the Odofin of Ikoro succeeds to the land in dispute whenever an Odofin dies.
14. The land in dispute has since the said grant been in the exclusive possession of the Plaintiff’s family who have been exercising all and every act of ownership on it by farming and cultivating the land.
15. The Plaintiffs’ family in further exercise of acts of ownership also granted portions of the land in dispute to some Okemesi farmers who farm on it on payment of annual Ishakole.
16. The Plaintiff became Chief Odofin of Ikoro in 1937 when Chief Abe (the then Odofin of Ikoro) died and continued in exclusive possession of the land in dispute and has continuously used the same for farming and exercising every act of ownership on it.
17. The Defendants are not one of those who were granted farming rights by the Plaintiffs’ family to farm on the land in dispute.
18. Immediately after the commencement of this action certain Okemesi farmers farming on Ikoro land (including the land in dispute) refused to pay their usual annual ishakole and were evicted from their holdings.

19 On the 29th day of October, 1962 the 1st Defendant, some of his chiefs, some of the displaced Okemesi farmers etc., wrote a letter to His Highness the Onikoro admitting the title of Onikoro to land on the eastern side of Oshun River including land in dispute.

20. Sometime in August 1961 the Defendants and their servants or agents unlawfully broke and entered the land in dispute to carry out survey work.
21. The Defendants through their servants or agents wrongfully cut down many cocoa trees, palm tress and other crops planted by the Plaintiff on the land in dispute.
22. When the Defendants were challenged by the Plaintiffs they claimed the land in dispute as their own and as part of Okemesi land.

He also explained how the defendants came to settle near the land in dispute in paragraphs 2 – 10 of the said Statement of Claim as follows:-

2. The 1st Defendant is the Head Chief of Okemesi while the 2nd and 3rd Defendants are his subordinate chiefs, and also natives of Okemesi.
3. The Okemesi people originally came from Imesi Ile near Ilesa and were granted a parcel of land on which they settled many years ago by Ajero of Ijero.
4. The said piece or parcel of land granted to Okemesi people by Ajero of Ijero is situated at Oshun River and bounded on the north western side by Ife Division on the south by Effon district and has River Oshun as its natural boundary with Ijero land.
5. The Okemesi people have no land on the eastern side of Oshun river but some Okemesi farmers were permitted by Ijero people to farm on their land on the eastern side of River Oshun on payment of ishakole.
6. Sometime in 1940, there was an Inter tribal boundary dispute between people of Ijero and people of Okemesi in consequence of which an Inter Tribal Boundary Dispute settlement inquiry was conducted by Assistant District Officer, J. O. Cruddas.
7. The Inter tribal boundary dispute was settled and oshun River was decided as the boundary between Okemesi and Ijero people.
8. The history of the Okemesi people and the record of the Inter tribal boundary dispute settlement referred to in paragraphs 6 and 7 above are contained in the INTELLIGENCE REPORT ON THE OKEMESI DISTRICT in the EKITI DIVISION OF THE ONDO PROVINCE by R. A. VOSPER known as file ED 511 now at the National Archives Ibadan.
9. In 1955 one Shittu Olaitan Adesunmole sued one Baruwa of Okemesi and 3 others in the Ekiti Divisional Native Court of Ijero. Suit No. 20/55 in respect of land on the eastern side of Oshun river and the 1st Defendant intervened or interpleaded and sub-poenaed and relied on the said file ED 511 referred to in paragraph 8 above.
10. The Plaintiff will rely on the said document as estopping the defendants from disputing Oshun River as the boundary of Okemesi land with Ajero and also from raising of title to the land East of Oshun River including the land in dispute.

Meanwhile, in another action commenced in Suit No. AK/61/63, the Ajero of Ijero and the Olukoro of Ikoro for themselves and as representing the chiefs and people of Ikoro-Ijero, claimed from the same defendants (that is, the Okemesi people) declaration of title to a piece of land verged green on Plan No. BK 5926 A tendered in the case and marked Exhibit A. The land claimed by the plaintiffs in the earlier action, that is, in Suit No. AK/45/62. In addition to the claim for declaration of title, the plaintiffs in Suit No. AK/61/63 also asked for –

(a) declaration that the Okemesi people (the defendants) have forfeited their rights as customary tenants on the land in dispute;

(b) recovery of possession of the said land;

(c) 500pounds as damages for trespass on portion of the land not granted to the said defendants;

(d) an injunction to restrain them from committing further acts of trespass on the said portion.

The two cases were eventually consolidated. Presumably because of the nature of the claims of their overlord (the Ajero) and that of the Olukoro, which incorporated their own claim, the plaintiffs in Suit No. AK/45/62 did not give evidence. Evidence in respect of the two cases along the lines of the pleadings which had been filed and delivered, was given for them by the Ajero and the Olukoro.

With meticulous care, the learned trial Judge in a reserved judgment, summarised the evidence led by the plaintiffs in support of their claims as follows:-