Alhaji A. Baruwa V. Chief S.T. Osoba (1996)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

MUKHTAR, J.C.A. 

An action for the following reliefs was instituted by the plaintiff who is now the respondent against the appellants in the High Court of Ogun State, sitting in Ijebu-Ode.

1. A declaration that he is the person entitled to a Certificate of Occupancy in respect of a large parcel of land situate, lying and being along Imoru Road in Ijebu-Ode as will be more particularly shown on a Survey Plan to be filed later.
2. N50,000.00 being general damages for trespass being committed on the said land by the defendants.
3. An injunction to restrain the defendants, their servants, agents and anyone claiming through and by them from disturbing the plaintiff any longer in the enjoyment of his land.

Pleadings were exchanged by parties, and settled at statement of claim and amended statement of defence.

The plaintiff’s case is that he bought the piece of land in dispute from the Okuwoga Mole Family and deed of conveyance was executed. After the purchase a signboard bearing the plaintiff’s name was erected on the land and the plaintiff caused weeds on the land to be cleared twice a year. In 1979 the plaintiff read a newspaper publication that a Mr. M.O. Okubadejo has applied for Certificate of Occupancy to his land describing the land as Chief J.A. Ajayi Layout. The plaintiff filed a caution. Although Chief J.A. Ajayi is a member of Okuwoga Mole Family, the land in dispute was not the one given to his branch of the family. In 1981 the plaintiff discovered that some persons had buried pillars on his land and erected structures thereon. These people who were defendants in the lower court claimed they bought the land from the children of Okuade, the daughter of Okuwoga Mole.

The plaintiff claimed that the sale is illegal, null and void.

On their own part, the defendants’ case is that the land in dispute belonged to one Osi a hunter and farmer who settled at Isoku with a farmland along Imoru road, which forms part of Isoku. Osi begat Olatusen who married Okuwoga Mole who begat Okuade.

After the death of Olatusen, Okuade inherited the land, and farmed on it.

Okuade begat Chief Joshua Ajayi and Janet Osibogun and others, who inherited the land under native law and custom; and no member of Okuwoga Mole Family can claim any interest in the land. The land was layed out into plots and sold to all the defendants by the Okuade Family.

Both parties adduced evidence which the learned trial Judge evaluated. Their counsel addressed the Court and the addresses were considered by the learned trial Judge who found in favour of the plaintiff and gave judgment. Aggrieved by the judgment the defendants appealed to this Court on 6 grounds of appeal. In accordance with the rules of this court counsel for both sides exchanged briefs of argument which they adopted at the hearing of the appeal. In the appellants’ brief of argument were formulated five issues for determination. They are:-

1. Whether there was sufficient evidence to support the findings of the court on plaintiff’s claim and the decision of the trial court.
2. Whether the plaintiff has discharged the burden of proving the traditional evidence relied upon by him.
3. Whether the plaintiff has discharged the burden of proving partition.
4. Whether the admission of a copy of judgment in Suit HCJ/62/81 and the application of section 45 of the Evidence Act had occasioned a serious miscarriage of justice.
5. Whether the plaintiff was entitled to an order for possession.

I will take the issues in the sequence they are set out above, starting with the first one. The thrust of the appellants argument under this issue is the lack of proof by the respondent of the radical title of Okuwoga Mole Family, and the partition of the Okuwoga Mole land upon which he has hinged his claim. First and foremost what should be considered is the radical title of the original owner from whom others derived title down to the plaintiff. The plaintiff traced his title to Okuwoga Mole Family.

In doing so the root of title must be traced, and how the land became vested in the person who either settled thereon or was granted the land. Traditional history is one of the five ways in which a party can claim declaration of title to land. See: Idundun v. Okumagba (1976) 9/10 S.C. 227. To succeed in the claim for declaration of title to land based on traditional history a party must trace his title to the original settler or grantee by credible, cogent and conclusive evidence to the satisfaction of the trial Court. See: Atuanya v. Onyejekwe(1975) 3 SC 161; Olujebu  of Ijebu v. Eleda of Eda (1972) 5 SC 143; and Olujinle v. Adeagbo (1988) 2 NWLR (Pt.75) page 238. In the instant case, even though the respondent claimed his title from Okuwoga Mole he neither pleaded nor gave evidence on how the said Okuwoga became seised of the land.

As regard Exh. ‘A’ it is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that the respondent did not prove his claim in that he neither proved the execution of the deed Exh ‘A’ nor its due execution. He placed reliance on the case of Abiodun Adelaja (Attorney for Victor Odudemi) v. Olatunde Fanoiki (1990) 2 NWLR (Pt.131) page 137. In reply learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that this contention is unfounded in view of the evidence of the respondent and P.W. 4. I will now look at the various relevant pieces of evidence of first, the respondent. These read:-

“I bought the land in dispute in 1976 from the Okuwoga Mole Family headed by Daddy Shittu Adebogun and I was given a conveyance …

When I bought these land three branches of Okuwoga Omole family joined in the conveyance. It was only Okuade branch that did not join in the conveyance.