A. Makanjuola & Anor V. Chief Oyelakin Balogun (1989)

WALI, J.S.C. 

In the High Court of Justice of Oyo State of Nigeria. Ibadan Judicial Division, the plaintiff sued the defendants jointly and severally asking for the following reliefs:-

“1. Declaration of title under Native Law and Custom to all that piece or parcel of land, situate, lying and being at Elere Stream, Igbo-Elere, Ibadan.

2. One Hundred Naira (N100.00) being damages for continuing trespass committed by the 1st defendant on the plaintiff’s land, situate, lying and being at fgbo Elere Stream Ibadan, sometime in May, 1977.
3. An Order for injunction restraining the defendants, their servants or privies and/or agents from committing further acts of trespass on the aforesaid land.”

Pleadings were ordered, filed and exchanged and issues joined. Before the taking of evidence commenced, the plaintiff, by leave of the trial court, filed an Amended Statement of Claim and in paragraph 26 thereof he asked for the following reliefs:-

“I. Declaration that the plaintiff is entitled to a Certificate of Occupancy (customary) in respect of the farmland, situate ,lying and being at Elere Stream, Igbo Elere, Ibadan.

2. One Hundred Naira (N100.00) being damages for trespass committed on the plaintiff’s land, situate, lying and being at Elere Stream, Igbo Elere, Ibadan, on May 14th, 1977.
3. An Order for injunction, restraining the defendants, their servants or privies and agents from committing further acts of trespass on the aforementioned farmland shown on Plan No. KESH/R/407A.”

At the end of the trial the learned trial Judge (Ademakinwa, J.) considered the evidence adduced before him, made findings of fact, among which are the following:-

“It is generally accepted principles of law that ownership of land may be proved in five ways, two of which are by traditional evidence and evidence of acts of possession. (See Idundun v. Okumagba (1976) 1 N.M.L.R. 200 at page 210).

The plaintiff in this case is relying on the traditional evidence as to how his predecessors-in-title came by the land and the acts of possession exercised thereon since then.

If anything is clear from the evidence adduced in this case it is that at a point in time Bello Adediran, the vendor of the plaintiff was in possession of a parcel of land somewhere in the vicinity of the land now in dispute. The plaintiffs case is that Bello Adediran inherited the land from his father Odunlami to whom the land was granted by the original owner known as Ago.

The defendants on the other hand maintained that Bello Adediran was in possession of another parcel of land in the vicinity but quite distinct from the land in dispute, as a tenant of the ancestor of the 2nd defendant, known as Sanni Aderohunmu Amubikaun, who was said to have settled on the land after the Gbanamu war.

On this particular point, the evidence adduced by plaintiff through (sic) on 9th, 10th and 11th P.Ws. and the judgment of the Ibadan No.3 Grade “B” Customary Court (Exhibit “N”) would appear to be more convincing than that adduced by the defendants. Of particular note is the evidence of the 10th P.W. Ogunnihun Ajeigbe who at the age of about 84 years had had the opportunity of knowing Bello Adediran and the grandfatherofthe 2nd defendant personally.

Unlike the 9th and 11th P.Ws, who are children of the late Bello Adediran, this witness was not shown to have been related to Bello Adediran. She is the daughter of Babajide, who like Bello Adediran was another grantee of Ago. It has been elicited under cross-examination that this witness was involved in a land dispute with one Adedeji Ola in which the 2nd defendant supported her opponent.

I have therefore warned myself of the possibility of her evidence being tainted by prejudice against the 2nd defendant. But on the whole I am convinced that she was telling the truth. I therefore accept her evidence and that of the other witnesses for the Plaintiff as to the traditional history of the land granted by Ago to Odunlami, the father of Bello Adediran, the vendor of the plaintiff in this case.

There is also the evidence of act of possession exercised by the plaintiff’s vendor as exemplified by the certified true copy of the judgment of the Ibadan No.3 Grade “B” Customary Court in Suit No.25/59 between Bello Adediran v. Sadiku Oloke & Anor., which was tendered and admitted in this case as Exhibit “N”. At page 34 of the Exhibit the Customary Court of trial had found that Bello Adediran, the plaintiffs vendor, had been in possession of a parcel of land at Oniponrin, Ibadan District for a considerable number of years and that the said Bello Adediran inherited the land from his father. The land in question was more particularly delineated in the Plan No. 305/59 dated the 17th June, 1959 and admitted as Exhibit “A” before the Court.”

……………………