Abraham Oyeniran & Ors. V. James Egbetola & Anor. (1997)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

MOHAMMED, J.S.C.

This is an appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal, Ibadan Division. In its decision, the lower court affirmed the judgment of Ajileye J. of Oyo State High Court which the learned trial judge delivered at Oshogbo. The claim of the plaintiffs, who are respondents in this appeal, as per their writ of summons, is as follows:

“(i) Declaration that the plaintiffs, by customary occupation are entitled to the customary right of occupancy to the plaintiff’s Songbe/Idi-Iroko Farmland situate lying and being at Songbe/Idi-Iroko, Kuta in Iwo East Local Government Area of Oshun Division of Oyo State of Nigeria; (Relevant Plan of the said disputed land to be filed with the Statement of Claim will show specific delimitations.)

(ii) N1000 being General Damages against the defendants for trespass committed upon the said farmland by the said defendants and/or their agents between February and May, 1982.

(iii) Injunction restraining the defendants, their agents, servants and/or privies from further acts of trespass upon the said farmland.”

From the reliefs claimed in the Writ of Summons, the parties are in dispute over title to a piece of farmland at Songbe/Idi-Iroko, Kuta, in Iwo East Local Government Area, now in Osun State. At the conclusion of the trial the learned trial Judge, in a considered judgment, found in favour of the plaintiffs/respondents and granted all the reliefs sought for in the writ. In claim (ii) however the trial court awarded only N750.00 damages. Dissatisfied with the decision of the trial High Court the appellants appealed to the Court of Appeal. At the Court of Appeal the appellants brought in for the first time the issue of jurisdiction. Ground 5 reads:

“The learned trial Judge erred in law when he assumed jurisdiction over the land in dispute and which land is subject to Customary Right of Occupancy.”

Two issues were raised in respect of Ground 5. They are:

“(i) Whether the High Court had jurisdiction to adjudicate on the matter before it having regard to the provisions of the Land Use Act 1978, particularly sections 39 and 41 thereof.

(ii) Whether there is anything on toe record to show that the land in dispute is in a rural area.”

The Court of Appeal considered all the issues including the issue questioning the jurisdiction of the High Court to adjudicate in the matter and in a considered judgment it dismissed the appeal. The appellants have further appealed to this court on five grounds of appeal. The following 6 issues have been formulated by the appellant for the determination of the appeal:

“1. Whether the learned trial Judge was right in finding for the plaintiffs/respondents, when the plaintiffs/respondents had not proved a case of trespass against the defendants/appellants to the satisfaction of the court.

2. Whether the plaintiffs/respondents who claimed title to the land in dispute on the ground of settlement by their ancestor have established such title.
3. Whether the Court of Appeal was right in upholding the finding by the learned trial Judge that Exhibits C and C1 estop the defendants/appellants in spite of the evidence adduced by 3rd Dw (Page 29) and 4th D.W. under cross examination (page 32 lines 24 – 25 of the Record of Appeal) and admission by the plaintiffs/respondents on page 77-

“Portions of the original tract of land were later conceded to

(i) Oyakowide and Oyeleke – Exhibit “B”