Asani Sogunro & Ors V. Aremu Yeku & Ors (2017)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

CHIMA CENTUS NWEZE, J.S.C.

At the High Court of Ogun State, Otta Judicial Division, the appellants in this appeal (as plaintiffs) caused a Writ of Summons to be issued against the respondents herein (defendants). Pleadings were settled and exchanged; amended and exchanged.

The case of the appellants, as could be gleaned from Paragraph 33 of the Further Amended Statement of Claim, was expressed thus “The defendants being tenants of the plaintiffs have by their actions denied the plaintiffs’ title and have claimed ownership absolutely or through other source.” The reliefs sought were couched thus:

“34 (a) A Declaration of forfeiture of the defendants’ tenure under native law and custom;

(b) Possession of the said land.”

Seven witnesses testified in favour of the plaintiffs. On their part, the defendants’ case was put forward by their five witnesses. In his address, at the end of the oral testimonies, learned counsel for the defendants contended that the plaintiffs failed to establish that they (the defendants) were their customary tenants at Ibasa. He explained that the ancestors of the defendants settled

1

thereat. He pointed out that the plaintiffs and their witnesses confirmed that the ancestors of the defendants, namely, Odeyale and Odeleye founded Olowotedo and created Oluweri Stream or river.

Contrariwise, learned counsel for the plaintiffs urged the Court to find that they made out a case that it was the plaintiffs’ ancestors, namely, Abinu and Adetonlu, who first settled on the land, having migrated from Ile Ife, stopping over at Ijebu Ode. They finally, settled down at the land in dispute. In its judgment of October 21, 1988, the Court, (hereinafter referred to as “the trial Court”), dismissed the plaintiffs claim.

Like the trial Court, the Court of Appeal (hereinafter, simply, referred to as “the lower Court”), also dismissed the Plaintiffs’ appeal to it from the said judgment.

This further appeal to this Court is the appellants’ expression of their disavowal of the validity of the reasoning of the lower Courts judgment. Although three issues were originally formulated in the brief of argument filed on May 14, 2012, learned counsel for the appellants abandoned the second and third issues at the hearing of the appeal on November

2

29, 2016.

They were accordingly, struck out. In effect, only the sub-joined first issue is outstanding in the appellants’ favour: