Alhaji Rufai A. Salami V. Amusa Oseni & Ors. (2001)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

ONALAJA, J.C.A.

In Iperu Remo Grade II Customary Court Iperu Remo, Ogun State the plaintiff before the said court sued in a representative capacity for him self and on behalf of entire Agbelu Family, Iperu Remo against the defendants therein as follows:-

“Claim:

The plaintiffs claim against the defendants according to native law and custom is for title of ownership to that part of piece or parcel of land of the Agbelu Family’s farmland, situated lying and being at Agbelu farm, old Ikenne Road, Iperu Remo in the area of jurisdiction of this honourable court, which the defendants occupy as tenants from Agbelu family since long time ago and failed or refuse to quit out and give back possession of the said farmland to the entire Agbelu family who is the rightful owner of the said farmland. The said farm land as a whole is bounded on its four sides with Godo farmland with Lesa-Iyun family’s farmland with Igbokuru farmland and with Orile-Igo farmland, respectively. The value of the said part of the farmland now in dispute is about Eight hundred naira N800.00 and it is more than three kilometers in distance to the township. Injunction to restrain the defendants, their agents, labourers, sons, daughters or anyone of theirs from further entry into the said farmland now in dispute for doing any act or acts of cultivating crops thereon till the final determination of this honourable court”.

At the trial in the said customary court, the plaintiff testified for himself and called two other witnesses whilst the defendant testified for himself and other defendants and called 2 other witnesses. The customary court visited the locus ill quo in the presence of the parties and the witnesses a record of the visit was recorded and adopted by the parties. After the visit to the locus in quo the court took time for consideration of the matter and gave eventually its judgment on 12th March, 1990 wherein it gave the defendants order to relinquish the portion of land once held and described as Obo Agbelu, plaintiffs farmland which included a rectangular strip bounded by the controversial boundary towards the Orile Igo boundary line of the land in dispute.

The plaintiff being dissatisfied with the said judgment appealed to the High Court of Ogun State holden at Sagamu. The defendants also being dissatisfied with the said judgment of the customary court filed a cross-appeal against the said judgment in the High Court.

The appeal and cross-appeal were argued by learned counsel of the plaintiff/appellant and defendants/cross-appellants before Honourable Justice G.A. Bakare of Sagamu High Court who on 29th May, 1996 delivered his considered judgment to be found at pages 90-94 of the record of appeal. The plaintiff/appellant was dissatisfied and appealed timeously to the Court of Appeal by notice of appeal filed on 25th June, 1996 at pages 95-97 of the record of appeal. The plaintiff/appellant henceforth in this judgment is referred to as the appellant.

Appellant formulated two grounds A and B and furnished in accordance with the rules of the court the particulars of misdirection and errors. He caused the notice of appeal to be served on defendant/cross-appellant now referred to in this judgment as respondents.

At page 4 of appellant’s brief of argument he raised issues 3.01(a), 3.02(b), 3.03(c) and 3.04(d).

Appellant’s brief of argument was served on respondents who filed respondents’ brief of argument wherein they raised issues 3.01 to 3.07 as issues for determination in this appeal because of the outcome and turn out of this appeal I reproduce paragraph 3.01 which raised the issue of competence of this appeal and jurisdiction of this court as follows:-

“Issues for Determination:

3.01. Whether this appeal is competent being an appeal originating from customary court to the High Court and from the High Court to the Court of Appeal on grounds of law, facts and mixed facts and law”.

Appellant was served with respondents’ brief of argument he did not file a reply brief to respondents’ brief of argument.

Upon the matter coming up for argument the learned counsel for the appellant though served did not come up to argue appellant’s brief.