Ape Salisu & Ors. V Lateef Odumade & Anor (2010)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

I.F. OGBUAGU, J.S.C.

This is an appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeal, Ibadan Division (hereinafter called “the court below”) stated in the Respondents’ Brief to be “Ibadan Judicial Division”) delivered on 3rd April, 2003 affirming the judgment of the Ogun State High Court holden at Ijebu-Ode Judicial delivered on 16th January, 1996 – per Oyewole Osidipe, J, entering judgment in favour of the Plaintiffs/Respondents in respect of all their claims.

Dissatisfied with the said decision, the appellants who were the defendants in the trial court have appealed to this Court on four (4) grounds of appeal which without their particulars, read as follows:

“1. The Justices of Court of Appeal erred in law by holding that “Therefore Okejasi Community is a party to the proceedings where the names of the families are stated and the names of the families within the Community may be interchangeably used to describe the same people as Okejasi Community, the distinction of the names sought to be made by the appellants in issue one is misconceived and refused”.

2. Justices of Court of Appeal erred in law when it (sic) held inter alia that “By payment of the rent paid to the plaintiffs there is acknowledgment of the plaintiffs the over Lordships of the entire land.”

“The evidence of possessory right of the plaintiffs/respondents to the land is unassailable”.

3. The Justices of Court of Appeal (just as the trial court) erred in law by not considering at all issue No. 5 which was distilled from ground 5 of the ground (sic) of Appeal.
4. The Justices of Court of Appeal erred in law and on the facts when they held that “I have read with care, the printed record. I do not see in the record any reliance on the contents of exhibit ‘C’ in the judgment.”

The Plaintiffs/Respondents in the trial High Court, brought the action leading to this appeal, in a representative capacity (with the approval of the court) for themselves and on behalf of Layode, Liyesi, Oludediro and Adebote/Lapogan families of Okejasi Quarter people of Ijebu-Ode, claiming against the Defendants/Appellants described as the children of late Mr. Gafari Folorunsho Ajidagba, in paragraph 23 of their Amended Statement of Claim as follows:

“(1) Possession of the piece or parcel of land situate lying being along Abeokuta Rod, Oke-Ijasi, Ijebu-Ode which the Plaintiffs lease (sic) out to the Defendants’ father late Mr. Gafari Folorunsho Ajidagba.

(2) Mesne profit from January 1985 at the rate of N400.00 per year payable on the said piece or parcel of land until the final determination of the above suit.

(3) Injunction restraining the Defendants their agents, servants and anyone claiming through them from dealing and/or leasing out the said piece of parcel of land or part thereof.”

Pleadings were filed and exchanged by the parties. The original Plaintiffs, called one witness in support of their case. He was the 2nd plaintiff and who was the Secretary of the said families so represented. He tendered some documents. The Defendants/Appellants, called two witnesses in their defence. After addresses by the learned counsel for the parties, the learned trial judge, in a well considered judgment, granted all the reliefs/claims of the Plaintiffs/Respondents. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the Appellants appealed to the court below that dismissed their appeal and affirmed the said judgment of the trial court hence the instant appeal.

The Appellants have formulated in their Brief of Argument, three issues for determination, namely:

1. Whether the Court of Appeal was right in holding that named the families (sic) on behalf of whom the Plaintiffs/Respondents instituted the action were synonymous with Okejasi Community.
2. Whether the Court of Appeal was right by not considering at all issue No. 5, distilled from ground 5 of the grounds of appeal which deals with exhibit H1 through which the Plaintiffs/Respondents conceded title to the land in dispute to the Defendant/Appellants.
3. Whether exhibit ‘C’ which was wrongly admitted in evidence was relied upon by the trial court and the effect of the exhibit on the judgment of the courts”.

I note that the Appellants stated that issue 1, covers ground 1 of the grounds of appeal while issue 2, deals with grounds 2 and 3 of the grounds of appeal.

On their part, the Plaintiffs/Respondents, have also formulated three issues for determination. They read as follows:

“i) Whether the Okejasi Community was made a party to this action (Ground 1);