Alhaji Sadiat Ameen & Ors Vs Amos Amao & Ors (2013)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

Mary Ukaego Peter -Odili

This is an appeal by the appellants against judgment of the court of Appeal sitting in Ibadan made on the 8th day of March, 1994 in which the judgment of the High court Ogbomosho was affirmed.

The appellants (as plaintiffs in the High court) took out a writ of summons against the defendants/respondents claiming the following:

1. That prior to the promulgation of the Land Use Decree, the plaintiffs family had been the original absolute owner under Native Law and Custom of all the vast tracts of land in and around Abogunde homestead (Ahoro Abogunde), part of which the land in dispute, which shall be more properly described and delineated on a survey plan to be filed as soon as possible.
2. That since the entitled promulgation of Land Use Decree, the plaintiffs are the people entitled to the Statutory Right of Occupancy (to the exclusion of the defendants) in respect of the land in dispute.
3. That the plaintiffs are entitled to N5,000.00 damages for trespass committed by the defendants on the disputed land, and injunction restraining the defendants, their servants, agents, privies from committing further trespass on the said land in dispute. The defendants/respondents filed a counter-claim for.

“A declaration of customary right of occupancy to all that piece or parcel of farm land situate, lying being at Igbonla Baale lkosie which land is demarcated, described and shown on the Survey Plan No.FFO 83/07/86 attached to the statement of defence and which land is about 6 kilometers away from Ogbomosho Township.

N10.000.00 (Ten thousand Naira) being general damages for the acts of trespass committed by the plaintiffs on the said land between 1984 and 1985.

Injunction restraining the plaintiffs, their agents, servants, privies, workmen, whomsoever from committing acts of trespass on the said land.’

The Survey Plan No. OB5197 which the plaintiffs filed with their pleading was admitted in evidence as Exhibit ‘A’. The plaintiffs’ case was that the area verged ‘RED’ thereon formed part of a large tract of land upon which their ancestors settled many years ago. It was also their case that the large tract of land included granting of portions of the land to Baale Masifa family and Iyalode family. The plaintiffs claimed that they were in undisturbed and peaceful possession of their said family land until a few years back when the defendants unlawfully entered thereon and started to lay claim to the same.

The defendants denied that the plaintiffs ancestors were the owners of the land verged ‘RED’ on Exhibit ‘A’. A Plan which they filed with ‘RED’ their pleading was admitted in evidence as Exhibit ‘J’. The area verged on Exhibit A formed only a part of the land verged ‘RED’ on Exhibit ‘J’. Their case was that their ancestor was the original owner of a tract of land including the area verged ‘RED’ and the area described as Baale Masifa Family land on Exhibit “J’. The defendants claimed that it was by virtue of a grant from their family that Baale Masifa family came to be in possession of the area described as Baale Masifa Family Land. The defendants also claimed to have granted other portions of the land to various persons including the plaintiffs family.

Both parties adduced evidence in support of their respective pleadings at the end of which the learned trial judge dismissed the plaintiffs claims and entered judgment in favour of the defendants on some of the areas claimed to be in dispute. Dissatisfied the plaintiffs appealed to the Court of Appeal which affirmed the judgment of the trial court hence this appeal to the Supreme Court.

At the hearing on the 3rd December 2012, learned counsel for the appellants adopted their Amended Brief of Arguments settled by Abdulhamid Rabiu Esq, filed on 4/12/10 and deemed filed on 29/2/12. In the brief were distilled four issues for determination, viz

(i) Whether the order of non suit was hinged on the provision of Section 36 of the Land Use Act and whether the order made without hearing the parties can be sustained.

(ii) Whether the appellants were liable on trespass and whether the respondents proved any act of damages at the trial.

(iii) Whether there was conflict in the evidence of tradition of the parties if no, which of the traditional evidence is more probable.

(iv) Whether the respondents adduced enough evidence in proving their counter-claim and whether the lower court ought to reappraise the evidence led in this case.