Chief Rasaki Kolawole Sodipo & Ors. V. Mr. Ayinla Shadeko Ogidan & Ors. (2007)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

CLARA BATA OGUNBIYI, J.C.A.

Both parties are hereby agreed on the introduction and the statements of facts which are as follows:

The case was commenced in the High Court of Lagos State by a Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim. The originating processes were subsequently amended. The Respondents filed Statement of Defence and a Counter-Claim which were also amended.

In the Amended Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim, the Plaintiffs/Appellants claimed for the following reliefs against the 1st and 2nd Defendants/Respondents:- (1) An Order of forfeiture of the 1st Defendant/Respondent’s rights and privileges as customary tenants over those parcels of land shown in plan No. LSE.D228/83 prepared by one M. O Diya, a licensed surveyor, which land is situate and lying at Agbele near Ikorodu, along the Chief Obafemi Awolowo Road (Old Agbowa Road) Ikorodu Local Government of Lagos State. (2) A declaration that the purported alienation of some of the parcels of land shown in the said plan No. LSE.D.228/83 by the 1st Defendant to the 2nd Defendant among others is null and void and of no effect whatsoever. (3) An Order of Court restraining the Defendants from henceforth trespassing on the Plaintiffs’ land particularly all that land shown in the plan No. LSE.D.228/83. (See page 2 of the Records).

After the service of the originating processes on the 1st and 2nd Defendants/Respondents who were the original Defendants in the suit, Mr. S. K. Dada Keyo and Mr. Babajinmi Enigbokan applied to be joined as co-defendants. The Co-defendants were allowed to be joined because the Plaintiffs/ Appellants admitted that they are also members of Regun Family. After the death of S. K. Dada Keyo, his brother Mr. Kameel A. Dada was substituted as the 3rd Defendant.

In the 1st Defendant’s Amended Statement of Defence and Counter Claim, the Defendant denied that the tenancy is liable for forfeiture, claimed relief from forfeiture, claimed damages for trespass against the Plaintiffs and also claimed for an order of injunction against the plaintiffs. (See pages 6-8 of the Records)

In his Statement of Defence, the 2nd Defendant admitted that one Amusa Ogidan gave him part of the land to use on the claim that it belongs to him i.e. Amusa Ogidan (See pages 10-11 of the Records, particularly paragraph 8 of the Defence).

The 3rd and 4th Defendants filed a Statement of Defence and a Counter-Claim. In it, they denied that the Plaintiffs are head and principal members of Regun Family. The 3rd Defendant claimed that, he is the head of Regun Family and the Chief Regun of Ikorodu. (See pages 12-16 of the Records).

The Plaintiffs filed a defence to the 3rd and 4th Defendant’s Counter Claim (See pages 17-19 of the Records).

The summary of the facts of the case are that the Plaintiffs claimed to be the Head and Principal members of Regun family, the 1st Plaintiff also claimed to be the Chief Regun of Ikorodu. They sued the 1st and 2nd

Defendants for forfeiture of the customary tenancy of the 1st Defendant on the land in dispute. As expected, the 1st Defendant denied alienating the land to third, parties and also claimed that the Plaintiffs are trespassing on the land. On being joined as parties to the suit the 3rd and 4th Defendants brought a new dimension into the it when they denied the 1st and 3rd Plaintiffs’ claim as head and principal members of Regun Family and therefore introduced the issues of headship of the family and the chieftaincy title of Chief Regun of Ikorodu into the matter.

The case went to trial. The Plaintiffs (hereinafter referred to as the Appellants) called two witnesses and tendered nine exhibits. The Defendants (hereinafter referred to as the Respondents) called three witnesses and tendered two exhibits. After the close of the case, the learned trial judge ordered that written addresses should be filed. In a considered judgment, the learned trial judge dismissed the case of the Appellants and the Counter-claim of the 1st Respondent and entered judgment for the 3rd and 4th Respondents on some of their reliefs in their Counter-Claim and dismissed their Counter-claim to declare portions of the land already sold by the Appellants as null and void. Their Counter-Claim for N1,774,000 being rent collected by the Appellants on the family house and shops was also dismissed on the ground of laches and acquiescence.

Being dissatisfied with the judgment of the learned trial judge, the Appellants filed a Notice of Appeal dated the 31st day of May 2002. The said Notice of Appeal was subsequently amended by leave of this court dated the 23rd day of October 2003. The said amendment only substituted the name of Mr. Kameel A. Dada with that of Mr. S. K. Dada Keyo the former 3rd defendant.

In accordance with the rules of court, briefs were exchanged between parties. While the appellants’ brief dated 23rd and filed 24th December, 2003 was deemed filed and served on the 18th November 2004, the respondents’ brief which was dated 1sth June, 2005 and filed the same day was also deemed filed and served on the 28th September, 2005. The appellants reply brief was also dated and filed on the 7th July, 2005.