S.A. Oyefeso V. E.O. Coker (1998)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

PATS-ACHOLONU, J.C.A. 

The plaintiff’s claim against the defendant are:-

An order rectifying the register if titles kept in the Lagos Land Registry by deleting the name of the defendant as the freehold proprietor of the land registered under title No. MO2798.

(2) A declaration that the plaintiff is the fee simple owner or that portion of the above land (which will be shown on the plan to be filed by the plaintiff in this suit) that falls within the plaintiff land subject matters of his application first registration in title No. MO. 2741

(3) Annual rental value of land in dispute is 10pounds. The suit was filed when the pound sterling was the legal tender in use.

The facts of the case of the respondent who was the plaintiff in the lower court are that the land in dispute forms portion of the land originally conveyed to one Bakare Osheru by Oloto chieftaincy family by a deed of conveyance dated, 18th June 1910 and thereafter registered as No.4 at P.9 in volume 70 of the Register at Ikeja. Not long afterwards Bakare Osharu conveyed the land in dispute to one James Williams Martins under and by virtue of a deed of conveyance dated 22nd, June 1910. It was also registered. A portion of this land was sold and conveyed by the personal representatives of J.W. Martinsto one Obayomi Bajomo under an order of the court.

It was registered. Bajomo in turn conveyed the land to the plaintiff on 16/3/60 and the same was registered as No. 21 at Page 21 in volume 1154 register of deeds. The plaintiff then strove to apply to register the document under title No. 2741 acting on Registration of Titles Act hut this was opposed by Mr. Alimi Eyiowuawi and J.B. Atunrase “for himself an on behalf of Ademola Oluwole Opeodu”. After hearing the objections, the Registrar of Titles dismissed them and ordered registrations.

There was no appeal to the High Court. However in 1964 in a suit No. LD/498/64 Atunrase and J.O. Opeodu filed an action seeking a declaration of title.

They lost up to the Supreme Court in suit No. S.C./303/67. After the Supreme Court judgment the plaintiff resumed the application for registration but was Informed, by the Registrar of Titles that a portion of that land had been registered by the defendant (now appellant) who claimed through Atunrase against whom judgment had been declared earlier in the Supreme Court. The defendant’s (appellant) case is that the land he acquired and in dispute forms part and parcel of a large track of land, originally belonging from time immemorial to Oloto chieftaincy family, That by a deed of conveyance of 27/9/56 and registered as No. 27 at P. 27 in volume 1068 the land in dispute was conveyed to one; J.B. Atunrase who in turn conveyed to the defendant which conveyance was registered under title No. 2798. It is this case that the land Atunrase objected its registration under the Titles Act is different from the land in dispute.

What is discernible from the case is that both parties have common predecessor in title and there were two judgments of the Supreme Court, first one being given on December 1962 in favour of the defendant’s predecessor, and the other judgment delivered on 3/6/69 in favour of the plaintiff against the defendant’s predecessor. After hearing the case, of the parties the court entered judgment for the plaintiff. The defendant filed an omnibus ground complaining against the judgment from which he framed of 7 issues for consideration while the respondent framed. J. issues. Having examined the question distilled by the parties carefully, I am of the view that there are two issues which are inter-related and which this court will dutifully consider.

They are as follows:-

(1) Whether the land in dispute is the same as the land the plaintiff had unsuccessfully sought to register as title No.2741 after obtaining; judgment in the Registrar of Titles chambers.

(2) Whether the two judgment’s of the Supreme Court relied on by both panics respectively are the same or mutually exclusive. This case has the unenviable character and distinction that it was fully tried by three Judges before Adeyinka J. the last judge, gave a decision on it. The duty or this court is to unravel how after the respondent had obtained judgment in the Supreme Court over the piece of land which he claimed Atunrase went to court to seek declaration and for which the respondent bought from Bajomo had a portion of it registered ostensibly when the proceedings were still on thereupon making it difficult for the respondent to be registered upon the register of title”.

The appellant sought to distinguish the land in dispute from the one that the respondent obtained judgment against him i.e. the land he was supposed to have registered during the pendency of the actions in the Supreme Court, Justice Martin witness of the respondent had, in support of the claim of the respondent when he was claiming for declaration of title testified as follows; “It is not correct that the land objected to by Atunrase in title No.M02741 is different from the land registered for the defendant in title M02798”. In the composite plan Ex.p7 drawn by 3 Marcell in August in Seweje, the property in dispute is sandwitched or embedded in a parcel of land, most of which is said to belong to Coker. The portion claimed by the appellant from the composite plan is smaller in area than the portion claimed by Coker. It is a common ground that the original owners of the land which from diverse sales of some parcels went to different people. are the Oloto chieftaincy family. The muddle/puddle that characterised the sale – and the casus belli would unquestionably be that one of the vendors had been guilty of sharp practice. In other words he has sold when he had no right to sell.