Adiatu Ladunni Vs Oludoyin Adekunle Kukoyi & Ors (1972)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

B. A. COKER, J.S.C. 

This appeal raises a point of paramount importance in that it poses in a neat form the considerations which are enjoined upon a court in granting an order of interlocutory injunction with regard to land.

The appellant herein was the defendant in the High Court, Lagos and the plaintiffs therein (now respondents) had sued him for a declaration of title to land being and situate at and known as Nos. 150-152, Jemi Alade layout, Idi-Araba, possession of the said land, damages for trespass to the land and an injunction against further acts of trespass.

Before the order for pleadings was applied for or made, the plaintiffs filed a motion asking for “an interim injunction restraining the defendant his servants and/or agents from further trespassing on plot Nos. 150 and 152, Jemi Alade layout, Idi-Araba, Ikeja District, Lagos State, property of the plaintiffs pending the final determination of this suit.”

Before the motion was argued, an order for pleadings was made and the plaintiffs accordingly filed their statement of claim. That statement of claim avers that the land in dispute formed a portion of lands traditionally belonging to the Alashe Chieftaincy family who had sold to one Jemi Alade, since deceased, and whose title to the land had been vindicated against one Aborishade by judgments of the Federal Supreme Court.

The statement of claim further states that the plaintiffs had purchased the land from the legal personal representatives of the said Jemi Alade and had obtained a conveyance of same dated the 22nd July, 1968; that since then they had been in possession of the land until the defendant “with the assistance of some servants, agents and/or workmen” came on the land and forcibly ejected them there from. In particular the plaintiffs’ statement of claim avers that:

“8. The land part of which is the land in dispute was the subject matter of the court action in suit No. 1/46/54 Babatunde Jemi Alade v. Aborishade in which judgment was delivered on 17th March, 1962, at the High Court, Ikeja.

9. The aforementioned judgment confirmed the title of the said Babatunde Jemi Alade to the said land including the land in dispute.”

There was filed along with the motion of the plaintiffs, an affidavit. The affidavit deposes to more or less the same facts as are set out in the statement of claim. As stated before, at the time when the motion was heard the defendant had not yet filed his statement of defence. Three counter-affidavits were however filed by or on his behalf-two were filed by the defendant himself and the other by his vendor, Alhaji Elias. The affidavits of the defendant depose to the fact that he had bought the land from Alhaji Elias by virtue of a conveyance dated the 6th March, 1959; that he had always been in possession of this and since then; that he never trespassed on any lands belonging to the plaintiffs but that on the 15th January, 1969, he ejected some trespassers from land in his possession and was in no way answerable for the complaints of the plaintiffs. The counter-affidavit filed by Alhaji Elias, as might be expected, confirms the sale of the land to the defendant by himself and deposes that he, i.e. the defendant’s vendor, had derived his title from “Mr Samuel B. Lawanson Aborishade who derived his title from Gbadamosi Aborishade by virtue of a deed of conveyance dated the 22nd December, 1954 and registered as No. 79 at p. 79 of Volume 4 in the Land Registry in Lagos.”

At the hearing of the motion the parties canvassed the above facts and learned counsel for the defendant opposed the granting of the order of interlocutory injunction. The learned trial judge in a reserved judgment reviewed the facts before him and directed himself thus:

“The principle on which the court will act in an application for an order of interlocutory injunction is well settled and it is that the court should be satisfied that there is a serious question to be tried at the hearing and that on the facts before it there is a probability that the plaintiff is entitled to relief.”

The learned trial judge then adverted to the submissions of learned counsel for the defendant that the application must fail in as much as the plaintiffs had not exhibited to their affidavit a copy of the deed of conveyance in virtue of which they are claiming. In this respect the learned trial judge had this to say:

“The applicants, he stated, must show their title to the court. As this is an interlocutory application in which evidence was not led, I do not consider it necessary for the applicants to exhibit all their title deeds and other documents that they will require to prove their case, it is sufficient to refer to these deeds in the affidavit. The existence of this title deed had not been challenged by the respondent. It is only when evidence is being led during the hearing of the substantive action that the failure of the applicants to tender these deeds may be fatal to their claim. ”

The learned trial judge then considered the balance of convenience and eventually made the order of interlocutory injunction against the defendant.

The present appeal is against that order and learned counsel for the defendant before us conceded that the learned trial judge properly directed himself on the law but contended that the learned trial judge mis-directed himself in the application of the law to the facts of the case. Learned counsel submitted that in order to succeed on such an application, the applicant must show a strong prima facie case and that in the particular case in hand as the plaintiffs were relying on a title by deed it was impossible for them to show such a prima facie case without exhibiting a copy of their deed of conveyance on which their title is predicated. On the other hand, learned counsel for the plaintiffs maintained that the judge was right in not insisting on the production at that stage of the proceedings of the actual deed of conveyance but had based his acceptance of the plaintiffs’ complaint on the allegation of the existence of such a deed.