Chief R.A. Adeagbo V. Prince M. A. Williams (1997)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

PATS-ACHOLONU, J.C.A. 

By a writ of summons dated 22/9/96, the plaintiff claims against the defendant-

(1) the sum of N6000.00 (Six thousand Naira) being damages for trespass committed on or about the 13th day of September, 1986 on the plaintiffs land and situate at 12 Prince Hamidu Williams Way, Okota, Isolo and shown on survey plan no. JLA/18/81.

(2) An injunction restraining the defendant, his servants and or agents from committing further acts of trespass on the said land.

The facts of the case are that the plaintiff now the respondent stated that he is in possession of a parcel of land situate at 12 Prince Hamidu Williams Way at Okota, Isolo which land forms part of a larger area of land belonging to Okota family and which he bought from the family at Okota in 1975. He stated that he erected a building on the land, but between 1984-85 he was detained by the Military Government and even though he had erected a building on that land, the defendant appellant used his misfortune of incarceration to make ingress into that land. He stated that he had a well and a wooden mosque on the land. When the appellant was challenged, he claimed that he purchased the land in dispute on or about 25th of December, 1976 from the same Okota family who gave him a receipt which was an evidence of sale and he was accordingly put into possession at the instance of one Sura Agbabiaka and Billy Apena of the Okota family. The respondent called three witnesses none of who was from Okota family while the appellant called 2 witnesses one of whom was the head of the Okota family.

In his judgment, the learned trial Judge held:

“The land in dispute was sold to the plaintiff in 1975 by the Okota family of Isolo the same vendor of the plaintiff proceeded to sell the same land to the defendant in December 1976. Plaintiff receipt is dated 25/10/75 No. 82. Defendant receipt is dated 25/12/76 No. 4376.

It is the same land the plaintiff produced Exhibit ‘F’ Survey Plan drawn in 1982 in respect of the land Exhibit C approved Building Plan. There was abundant evidence before me coming from the plaintiff his witnesses and from the defendant that the plaintiff had built on his own plot and the portion utilised is the one being sold to him by Okota family. From the above, I have no difficulty in coming to the conclusion that the plaintiff in this case (is) in actual physical possession. The story of the defendant and his witnesses cannot be true and I do not find it difficult in coming to conclusion that they are not speaking the truth. The defendant in this case has not produced any plan of the land he was claiming. He relied on the plaintiffs plan. If this is so, can it be said that the plaintiff broke into this land in 1986 as per the story of the defendant. This goes to show that the story of the defendant is not a truthful story. The plaintiff had built his house in 1982 on the land. If the defendant was in possession since 1976 what was he looking (sic) in 1982 when the plaintiff started erecting building and completed the building.

Having held that the plaintiff was in physical possession and that his possession was lawful having regard to the fact that the common radical owner had put him in possession in 1975 at the time he purchased the land in the presence of his wife. See Exh. A and the radical owner having recognised him as owners of plot sees Exh. E. Can the common radical owner sell the same land or portion of it to any other person having divested their ownership of the land? The answer to this is in the negative.”

Having lost the case and desirous of pursuing the matter of the presumed infraction of his interest in his land, the appellant lodged an appeal in which he detailed five grounds of appeal from which he thereafter formulated 3 (three) issues. They are the following:

(1) Since title to the land in dispute is in issue whether the plaintiff has proved a better title than that of the defendant to entitle him to judgment.

(2) Whether the plaintiff has proved exclusive possession of the land in dispute as to entitle him to award of damages against the defendant.

(3) Whether Section 45 of the Evidence Act is applicable to the facts of the case.

The respondent having accepted the facts of the case as made out by the appellant formulated the following issues arising out of the grounds of appeal.