Amusa Ogunsola Akinbode & Anor V. Alimi Adediran & Ors (2015)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

JAMES SHEHU ABIRIYI, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

This is an appeal against the judgment of the High Court of Osun State delivered on 30th March, 2006 at Ede, Ede judicial Division.

The Appellants were the Plaintiffs at the Lower Court. The Respondents were the Defendants.

The claim of the Appellants against the Respondents at the Lower Court was for the following:

(a) N2.0 Million as special and general damages against the Defendants (sic) for the trespass committed by the Defendants on the land lying and being at Oniyanrin Village, Ede and which land had been in possession of the Plaintiffs and bounded by (i) Lasisi Asunmo’s farm, (ii) Sule Atanda Bababanla, (iii) Labiyi and (iv) Logun Alimi.

(b) Injunction Restraining the Defendants by themselves, their servants, agents, privies and whosoever from further trespassing unto the land in dispute.

According to the Appellants, the land in dispute is at Oniyanrin in Logun village. About 40 – 50 years ago, Oba Toyese Laoye Timi of Ede gave Logun Safiriyu consent to grant the land to the Appellants. In 1983, the 1st Respondent trespassed into the land and he was reported to the Timi at that time. On 4/4/2002, the 2nd – 4h Respondents trespassed into the land and cut teak trees from it. When they were challenged, they claimed ownership of the land. The Appellants then reported the Respondents to the police. The Respondents were subsequently taken to the Magistrate Court.

The case of the Respondents according to the 1st Respondent is as follows: The Respondents’ land is called Olokun Ogunbunmi. The first Logun gave the land to the Respondents and Timi Akangbe was, the reigning Timi then. Logun Safiriyu gave the Appellants their land.

Sometimes in 2002, the Respondents reported to the 1st Respondent (head chief of Logun village) that 1st Appellant cut teak trees from their land. 1st Respondent stated that the teak trees cut on 4th April, 2002 by the Respondents were cut on their land.

According to the 1st Respondent the Appellants instituted an action against him because they knew he would tell the truth.

After hearing evidence adduced on both sides and considering addresses of learned counsel for both parties, the Lower Court dismissed the claim of the Appellants. Dissatisfied, the Appellants have approached this court. They filed a notice of appeal containing eight grounds of appeal.

The following issues have been presented by the Appellants for determination:

1. Whether the identity and dimension of the land in dispute were not established by the plaintiff in this case.
2. Whether the trial judge could abandonee (sic) the evidence of the plaintiff and use the contradicted evidence of the defendants to dismiss the plaintiff’s case when there are abundant evidence to sustain the claim of the plaintiff.
3. Whether ascription of different names to the same land would adversely affect the identify of the land in dispute.
4. Whether the failure of the plaintiff to file survey plan is fatal to the case of the plaintiff in the circumstance of this case.

On the other hand, the Respondents submitted the following issues for determination:

i. Whether the plaintiffs discharged the onus of proof expected of them in proof of their case.