Alhaji Muniru Aisa Animashaun & Ors. V. Saliu Aina Arupe & Ors. (2003)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

A. OGUNTADE, J.C.A. 

The appellants were the plaintiffs in Suit No.ID/1536/88 before the Ikeja High Court; and the respondents were the defendants. The parties are hereinafter described by the same descriptions they bore before the lower court. The plaintiffs brought the suit as the representatives of SUNMONU ANIMASHAUN family. The defendants were sued as the representatives of OBAWOLE family. The reliefs sought by the plaintiffs were:

“1. A declaration that the plaintiffs are entitled to the grant of a customary right of occupancy in respect of the tract of land measuring approximately 104.364 Hectares of land situate at Akute Road, off Iju Road, near Iju Station, Agege in the Ikeja Division of Lagos State demarcated on plan No. HU/LA/1648 drawn by T.A. Hussain (Licenced Surveyor) dated 14th day of February, 1981.

2. The sum of N20,000.00 (Twenty thousand Naira) being damages for trespass committed on the land by the defendants, their servants, agents or Privies going on the land on various occasions, effecting foundation and/or buildings thereon and fencing round some portions thereof.
3. An injunction restraining the defendants, their servants, agents on privies from continuing or committing any act of trespass on the land.”

The parties filed and exchanged pleadings. The relevant pleadings are these:-

1. Statement of claim dated 9/11/88
2. Statement of defence dated 19/12/88
3. Reply to statement of defence dated 25/1/89
4. Further defence dated 16/2/89
5. A further reply by plaintiff dated 9/3/89
6. A second further reply by plaintiff dated 13/4/89

At the hearing, before Alabi J., the plaintiffs called ten witnesses. The defendants called one witness. On 19/7/91, the trial judge in his judgment dismissed plaintiffs’ claims. The plaintiffs were dissatisfied with the judgment of the lower court. They have brought this appeal against it. In the appellants’ brief filed, the issues for determination in the appeal were identified as the following:

“i. What is the exact identity of the body of persons represented by the defendants in this action?

ii. Whether the court below was correct in concluding that there was controvercy between the parties to this action over the identity of the land in dispute.

iii. Whether the failure of the court below to take account of the discrepancy between:-

(a) the statement made to the police and

(b) the evidence given at the trial on behalf of the defendants regarding the grant of the land in dispute to Sunmonu Animashaun led to a serious error in the evaluation of the facts of this case.

(iv) Whether the persons vested with the title to or interest in the land in dispute in this action are

(a) the plaintiffs herein or (b) the Dada Adedipe family.

(v) In the light of the answers to the foregoing questions, and on the totality of the evidence before it what orders should the court below have made on the claims filed by the plaintiff in the action herein.”

The respondents in their counsel’s brief agreed with the issues for determination as formulated by the appellant except for the fourth issue which they modified to read: