Ajani & Ors V. The President And Members Of Olorunda Grade ?c? Customary Court & Anor (2016)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

MONICA BOLNA’AN DONGBAN-MENSEM, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

This appeal challenges the Ruling of the Oyo State High Court in which an order of certiorari to quash the decision of the President and members of the Olorunda Grade C Customary Court in suit No.7/98 of 22/10/98 was made. The said Ruling was delivered on the 29th March, 2001 by the Hon. Justice R. G. Oyetunde.

The brief facts of the suit which transmitted to this appeal started with suit No.7/98 taken out by the Appellants before the Lagelu Local Government Grade ‘C’ Customary Court Olorunda. The Court was presided over by the 1st Respondent who gave judgment against the 2nd Respondent but in favour of the Appellants.

The subject matter was the Ownership of a piece of land lying situate and being at Mafikuyomi town Ibadan. The suit at the Grade ?C’ Area Customary Court is alleged to have been heard and determined without notice to the 2nd Respondent who was also not served with a copy of the Judgment of the Court.

The 2nd Respondent felt aggrieved and filed an application ex-parte before the High Court of Justice Oyo State. The application

1

sought an order for judicial review by way of certiorari against the judgment of the Grade ‘C’ Area Customary Court. The order was made quashing the said Judgment and they now seek relief from this Court upon six grounds of appeal.

Five issues were raised from the six grounds as the vital points for determination before this Court.

The Appellants were the Plaintiffs at the High Court while the Respondents were the Defendants and shall herein be referred to simply as the Appellants and the Respondents. The 1st Respondent is a nominal party therefore only the 2nd Respondent is an active participant in this appeal.

All parties were nonetheless duly served with the hearing notice. The appeal deemed argued, being an old appeal which was abandoned with the briefs all dully filed.

The 2nd Respondent raised three issues for determination:

“1. Whether by virtue of some provisions in the Land Use Act 1978 which vested all land comprising in the territory of a state in the military Governor of the State, it was still possible for any person in Nigeria to lay claim to ownership of land.

2. Whether by the effect of this provision, jurisdiction

2

of the Court has not been ousted in respect of such claim.