Job Kolawole Buremoh V. Alhaji Isiaka Akande (2000)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

ONNOGHEN, J.C.A.

This is an appeal against the judgment of the High Court of Kwara State sitting in Ilorin Judicial Division in suit No. KWS/186/92 delivered by Hon. Justice A. O. Bamigbola on the 4th day of March, 1998 in which he granted some of the claims of the respondent/cross appellant then as plaintiff against the appellant.

The facts of the case include the following. On the 21st day of September, 1992 the respondent/cross-appellant caused a writ of summons to be issued on the appellant claiming the following reliefs, to wit:

“The plaintiff’s claim is that the defendant on a purported purchase from persons who are not the owners of land and had no claim whatever over their parcel of land situate at Tanke Iledu, Ilorin measuring 8.711 Acres applied and was issued a Certificate of Occupancy No. KW3356 of 30/6/80 and effective 19/12/79 for commercial purposes, without the plaintiff’s knowledge and consent as the rightful owners of the land.”

Whereof the plaintiffs claim as follows:

i. A declaration that the defendant’s Certificate of Occupancy No. KW3356 of 30/6/80, and effective from 19/12/79 is vitiated by fraud, and thus null and void.

ii. A declaration that the parcel of land situate at Tanke Iledu, Ilorin measuring 8.711 Acres belongs to the plaintiff.

iii. An order of this Honourable Court restraining the defendant by himself, his agents, servants and privies from going unto the land subject of his purported Certificate of Occupancy No. KW3356.”

The respondent/cross-appellant then followed it up with a statement of claim in which the reliefs reproduced supra were repeated:-

15. “The plaintiff shall upon the particulars in paragraph 14 above contend that the defendant’s Certificate of Occupancy No. KW.3356 of 30/6/80, effective 19/12/79 and covering 8.711 Acres at Tanke Iledu, Ilorin, is fraudulent.
16. The plaintiff shall contend that his family has neither parted nor been divested of her title to the piece of land lying, being and situate at Tanke Iledu, Ilorin along University of Ilorin permanent site Road, and no title to the defendant whose activities on the land is in trespass.
17. The plaintiff shall rely on all rules of law and equity applicable to this case.
18. Whereof the plaintiff claims as follows:

i. A declaration that the defendant’s Certificate of Occupancy No.KW3356 of 30/6/80, and effective from 19/12/79 is vitiated by fraud, and thus null and void.

ii. A declaration that the parcel of land situate, and being at Tanke Iledu, Ilorin measuring 8.711 Acres belongs to the plaintiff.

iii. An order of this Honourable Court restraining the defendant by himself, his agents, servants and privies from going to the land subject of his purported Certificate of Occupancy No. KW3356.”

It is the case for the respondent/cross-appellant that he represents his family in the matter and that the land in dispute forms part of a large piece or parcel of land belonging to his family at Tanke Iledu, Ilorin which shares boundaries with the University of Ilorin in permanent site road, the road of Agbabiaka village and Bawa Tanke Gbugbu road. That the land in dispute is at the centre of this land. That their forefather, Aliyu Alao also settled on the land from time immemorial and was the first to settle on the land. After he died Mallam Kasum took over as the head of the family. He was succeeded by Adigun who also used the land before his death. He was followed by Iliyasu Akande Aso as the head of the family. After him came the respondent/cross-appellant. That they leased the land to people for farming in return for farm products such as yam and maize. They also gave plots to people to build houses.

That the appellant was first noticed on the land in 1980 and was driven away. That it was the time when PW2 and DW2 started selling the respondent/cross-appellant’s family land. That Aliyu Ayinla, the late brother to the respondent sued PW2 & DW2 to the High Court. That following a settlement out of court PW2 and DW2 were told that the land in dispute belongs to the respondent’s family. Exhibit P1 was tendered as evidence of the settlement. That following the settlement, the case was withdrawn from court. That the family never gave the appellant the land nor was DW2 given any authority to sell the land to the appellant. That the Certificate of Occupancy was obtained wrongly.