Alhaji Sanni Shaibu V. J.o. Bakare (1984)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

COKER, J.S.C. 

This appeal arose from the decision of the Court of Appeal, dismissing the appeal of the defendant against the judgment of Beckley J., sitting in the High Court of Lagos State, at Ikeja. On the 18th day of November, 1977, he gave judgment in favour of the plaintiff for declaration that he is the owner under Yoruba native law and custom to the piece of land at Ipaja Road, Ikeja and more particularly described on a plan No. W.406/61 marked by four boundary pillars Nos. 1535, XR.1533, XR.1534 and A.220. In addition, he awarded N50 damages for trespass, and an order of injunction with N500 costs.

The defendant (hereinafter described as the appellant) appealed to the Court of Appeal, which on the 18th June, 1981, by a majority decision (Ademola and Kutigi JJ.C.A., Mohammed J.C.A. dissenting) dismissed the appeal and affirmed the decision of the trial court. Not satisfied with the majority decision, he has further appealed to this Court.

Chief Williams, S.A.N., for the appellant, was granted leave to substitute three new grounds of appeal for the six original grounds.

The two grounds which he argued, read as follows:

“(1) The Federal Court of Appeal erred in law and on the facts in failing to observe that the plaintiff has failed to prove the title pleaded by him in his statement of claim.

Particulars of Error

(a) there is no satisfactory evidence that the distribution of the real estate of Jacob Sanni Bakare was carried out with the consent of all his children; in any event the evidence of the plaintiff on this point though supported by exhibit 7, was contradicted by P. W. 4 who said that it was the executors of J.S. Bakare who carried out the distribution;

(b) the allegation in the statement of claim that a portion of the land of Jacob Sanni Bakare was given to the plaintiff and his brother (J.A. Bakare) though supported by the evidence of the plaintiff, was contradicted by the evidence of the only brother of the plaintiff who gave evidence Emmanuel Oladipo Bakare (P.w.4);

(c) Exhibits 1 and 2 tendered by the plaintiff himself show that title to the entire real estate of J.S. Bakare was vested in the personal representatives of his last surviving executor or trustee and accordingly the plaintiff’s claim to be owners of the land in dispute ought to have failed;

(d) the evidence of the plaintiff that he was permitted by his brother, J.A. Bakare, to use the plot in dispute for his own purposes was not pleaded and went to no issue and ought to have been ignored by the courts below.

(2) The Federal Court of Appeal erred in law in granting the plaintiff’s claim for declaration of title or damages for trespass or injunction.

Particulars of Error

(a) On the evidence put before the court by the plaintiff it is clear that he has failed to prove that he has received a conveyance or vesting assent from the executors of J.S. Bakare or from the personal representatives of his last surviving executor.