Abraham Olusegun Bankole & Ors V. Emir Industries Limited (2012)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

JOSEPH SHAGBAOR IKYEGH, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

The appeal is against the judgment of the High Court of Justice of Ogun State holden at Ota (the court below) which awarded N1 Million general damages against the appellants in favour of the respondent for trespass into the respondent’s parcel of land located along Idiroko/Iju road in Ado-Odo/Ota Local Government area of Ogun State.

A permanent injunction was also granted restraining the appellants from committing further acts of trespass on the disputed portion of land; while the appellants’ counter-claim for the setting aside of respondent’s documents of title over the disputed land was dismissed by the court below.

The respondent’s case as plaintiff in the court below was that Ogbe Alagbe family sold the land in dispute to Overseas United Distillers Limited in 1976, evidenced by a receipt of purchase, Exhibit A. That the appellants are offspring of Ogbe Alagbe family. Later in 1983, Ogbe Alagbe family issued a sale agreement, Exhibit F, to Overseas United Distillers Limited to facilitate the latter to obtain a certificate of occupancy (C of O), Exhibit D, over the land in dispute in 1984.

Then on 4.1.86, Overseas United Distillers Limited sold the disputed land to one Alhaji Alirni Abiodun Odunlami by Deed of Conveyance, Exhibit B. Alhaji Alimi Abiodun Odunlami in turn assigned the disputed land measuring approximately 8.113 hectares to the respondent by Deed of Conveyance, Exhibit C, dated 26.6.86.

The respondent took possession of the disputed land in 1986. It commenced construction of a factory building thereon. Some persons were also farming or planting on the land at the instance of the respondent until 2002 when the appellants started disputing ownership of the land with the respondent.

The dispute escalated to the destruction of the respondent’s factory buildings on the land by the appellants and the alienation of some portions of the land to third parties by the appellants who alleged the respondent did not buy the land from their family and had no right to occupy the land in dispute.

The appellants’ case on the other hand was that their family did not sell the disputed land to Overseas United Distillers Limited, nor were they aware of the claim of transfer of the land to the respondent; rather their family had sold part of the family land near the disputed land to a company called Overseas United Distillers Nigeria Ltd. which became united Distillers and Vintners Nig. Ltd and eventually changed its name to Stirling Beverages Ltd. which presently occupies the land sold to it by the appellants’ family near the disputed piece of land. The appellants therefore counterclaimed that all the documents of title obtained by the respondent – purchase receipt, sale agreement, two Deeds of conveyance and certificate of occupancy over the disputed piece of land are invalid and should be set aside by the court.

The court below accepted the respondent’s case and dismissed the appellants’ counter-claim. A notice of appeal with eleven grounds of appeals dated 11.4.07 was filed on 16.4.07 attacking the judgment of the court below. The appellants’ brief of argument filed on 28.2.08 distilled ten issues for determination on the appeal as follows:-

“(i) whether or not the trial court, a High court of Justice, has jurisdiction to determine the issue of the validity of the purchase of the land in dispute by a non-existent plaintiff’s predecessor in title named Overseas United Distillers Limited.

(ii) whether the alleged purchase of the land in dispute in 1976 vide Exhibit ‘A’ by the non-existent Plaintiff’s predecessor in title was/is valid’

(iii) whether the trial Judge was right to hold that the plaintiffs predecessor in title, Overseas United Distillers Ltd is the same company that was registered in 1982 as Overseas United Distillers Nigeria Ltd and issued with a certificate of Incorporation admitted as Exhibit S inspite of the state of pleadings and evidence before the trial court.

(iv) Whether or not the Plaintiff established its root of title to be entitled to the reliefs of damages for trespass and injunction awarded.

(v) Whether the trial Judge was right to hold that the sale of the land in dispute was completed under customary law as evidenced by Exhibit A notwithstanding the state of Exhibit ‘F’.