E. O. Fasoro & Anor V. Olalere A. Beyioku & Ors (1988)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

A. OPUTA, J.S.C. 

The Appellants who were the Plaintiffs in the Court of first instance sued the Defendants now Respondents claiming:-

“(a) Declaration of title to that piece or parcel of land lying, situate and being at Mile 6, Old Ife Road, Ibadan.

(b) N500.00 damages to each of the plaintiffs, for trespass committed by the Defendants since May, 1975.

(c) Injunction restraining the Defendants, their servants and/or agents from committing further trespass on the land”.

Pleadings were ordered, filed and exchanged. From paragraphs 3 and 4 of the Amended Statement of Claim, it is clear that “the land in dispute” is not just one parcel of land but two distinct parcels bought on different dates and conveyed to each Plaintiff again on different dates.

The area sold to the 1st Plaintiff as shown on the plan tendered as Ex. A is Area marked “B” verged Red and the parcel claimed by the 2nd Plaintiff is Area marked “A” verged Blue. The Root of Title pleaded by each Plaintiff was Sale by the Olayalo Family – the traditional owners of the land.

This sale was in each case covered by a Conveyance in English form as pleaded in paragraphs 10 and 11 of the Amended Statement of Claim. In addition to the Sale and Conveyance pleaded, the 1st Plaintiff pleaded in paragraph 14(a) of the Statement of Claim payment of “compensation for his crops on the land in dispute” by the Ministry of Works etc. during the construction of the Agodi Water Supply pipe-line. And in paragraph 14(c) both Plaintiffs pleaded that they “together with Chief D.E.A. Oguntoye who owned A.I an adjacent piece of land, laid out the land in dispute and named it Ore-meta Layout …….” Ex. F.

The Defendants denied in paragraph 30 of their Statement of Defence that the land in dispute ever belonged to the Plaintiffs’ vendors and in paragraph 31 the Defendants pleaded that the Plaintiffs “have never at any time taken possession either physical or otherwise of the land in dispute”.

The case of the Defendants as pleaded in paragraph 5 of their Statement of Defence was that “the entire area verged Red on plan No. MAY.228/77′ (tendered as Ex. K) “was granted to Beyioku Iseke, the great ancestor of the 1st, 3rd, 4th and 5th defendants by Efun, one of the great Ibadan warriors”. The area the plaintiffs are claiming is verged green in Ex. K. After this customary grant by Efun after the Ijaiye war, the Defendants’ ancestors and predecessors in-title went into effective possession as pleaded in paragraph 9 of the Statement of Defence. In paragraphs 10 to 19, the Defendants pleaded their geneology and descent from Beyioku.

From the pleadings of both sides, the following will emerge:-

1. There is no dispute about the land in dispute. It is common ground that the area verged Red and Blue in Ex. A is the area the Plaintiffs are claiming. The same area is verged green in Defendants’

plan Ex. K and designated “Area in dispute”.

2. The vital issue arising from the pleadings of the parties is the ownership of the area in dispute.
3. Were the Plaintiffs’ vendors the owners of the parcels of land they purported to convey to the Plaintiffs
4. Was there a customary grant of the land in dispute by Efun to Beyioku the ancestors of the Defendants
5. Did the Plaintiffs ever go into possession of the land sold to them by their vendors
6. Have the Defendants and their predecessor in-title remained in effective possession of the land in dispute after the customary grant by Efun as pleaded by them

These were the live issues arising from the pleadings of the parties that the Courts below had to decide.

After due hearing, the learned trial judge Ige, J. found and held as follows:-