Alhaji (Chief) Sunmonu Agbabiaka V. Akibu Okanlanwon Saibu & Ors (1998)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

IGUH, J.S.C.

In the Ikeja Judicial Division of the High Court of Lagos State, the plaintiff, who is now the appellant, by his predecessor, Alhaji (Chief) Tijani Agbabiaka Faniyi Aluko, deceased, and suing as the head of the Okota family of Isolo, in Lagos State commenced an action on the 7th day of December, 1982 against the respondents, who therein were the defendants, claiming jointly and severally as follows –

“(a) A declaration that the plaintiff as head of the Okota family is the only person entitled to manage Okota family land.

(b) A full and correct statement of all monies collected by the defendants and each and everyone of them, their servants and/or agents whether as rent, premium or otherwise from any person or persons to whom they have purported to grant plots or portions of Okota family land or otherwise received for and on account of the family land.

(c) Payment over to the plaintiff of the gross sum so collected or received by the defendants and each and everyone of them.

(d) An order of mandatory injunction restraining the defendants and each and every one of them, their servants or agents, from dealing in any manner whatsoever with the land subject matter of this case (including leasing, selling, letting or otherwise putting any person of persons on the land or taking any moneys worth from them for making a grant to such person or persons or in respect of any previous grant made to any person or persons.)”

Pleadings were ordered in the suit and were duly settled, filed and exchanged.

The original plaintiff in this case was one Alhaji (Chief) Tijani Agbabiaka Faniyi Aluko who was described in the writ as the head of the Okota family. He had filed the suit in his capacity as the head of the said Okota family of lsolo in Lagos State.

Hearing in the suit commenced on the 27th January, 1987. After two witnesses had testified, the original plaintiff in the action died on the 29th day of March, 1987. On application to the trial court, one Chief Fasali Ajose Ibioyinmi was substituted in place of the deceased Alhaji (Chief) Tijani Agbabiaka Faniyi Aluko. Thereafter, the case proceeded to completion.

At the conclusion of hearing, the learned trial Judge, Onalaja, J., as he then was, after a close review of the evidence on the 22nd June, 1990 dismissed the plaintiffs claims in their entirety. He held, in the main, that neither the plaintiff nor his predecessor, Alhaji (Chief) Agbabiaka Aluko, was established to have been appointed the head of the Okota family of Isola in the Lagos State and that the defendants on record were not connected with any of the conveyances, Exhibits 2 – 2s, tendered by the plaintiff in a bid to establish the defendants’ unauthorized dealings with the family land in dispute. Accordingly, the learned trial Judge held that the plaintiff had failed to prove that the defendants were accountable to the plaintiff as claimed. The plaintiffs claim for perpetual injunction was also dismissed as unsubstantiated.

Dissatisfied with this decision of the trial court, the plaintiff on the 22nd day of August, 1990 lodged an appeal against the same to the Court of Appeal, Lagos Division.

While this appeal was pending, the plaintiff, Chief Fasali Ajose Ibioyinmi died on the 16th day of October, 1990. On yet another application, the Court of Appeal on the 4th day of February, 1992 substituted Alhaji (Chief) Sunmonu Agbabiaka in place of the deceased Chief Fasali Ajose Ibioyinmi. The appeal was duly heard by the Court of Appeal on the 7th day of February , 1995. In a unanimous judgment, on the 4th day of May, 1995, the plaintiff’s appeal was dismissed and the decision of the trial court was affirmed.

Aggrieved by this decision of the Court of Appeal, the plaintiff has further appealed to this court. I shall hereinafter refer to the plaintiff and the defendants in this judgment as the appellant and the respondents respectively.

It is unnecessary to reproduce the appellant’s eight grounds of appeal in this judgment. It suffices to state that the parties, pursuant to the rules of this court, filed and exchanged their written briefs of argument.