Ayisatu Asabi Ewuoso & Ors V. Mr. Raufu Adeoye Fagbemi (2002)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

E. OGUNDARE, J.S.C.

By a writ of summons issued in May 1982 (and as subsequently amended) the plaintiffs (who are now appellants before us) sued the defendant (now respondent) claiming:

“(a) a declaration that they are the persons entitled to a right of occupancy over a piece or parcel of land situate, lying and being at Sokori Abeokuta, Ogun State of Nigeria verged green excluding the area sold to Kamoru Tijani Olaiya demarcated and verged black in the amended Plan drawn by Mr. Banji Akinhanmi – Licensed Surveyor.

(b) N200.00 (Two Hundred Naira) damages for trespass committed by the defendant on the said land.

(c) Injunction to restrain the defendant, his agents, servants and privies from further trespassing on the said land.”

Pleadings were ordered, filed and exchanged. With leave of court the plaintiffs subsequently filed an amended writ of summons, statement of claim and plan. The case proceeded to trial at the conclusion of which the learned trial Chief Judge (Delano, C.J) dismissed plaintiffs’ claims with costs to the defendant.

Being dissatisfied with the judgment of the trial court, plaintiffs appealed unsuccessfully to the Court of Appeal (coram: Mukhtar, Oguntade and Azaki, JJ.CA). They have further, with leave of the Court of Appeal, appealed to this court upon three grounds of appeal which without their particulars read as follows:

“1 (i) The learned Justices of Appeal erred in dismissing the appeal on the ground that the appellants failed to establish the identity of their land and the disputed land with certainty.

(ii) Alternatively, assuming the identity of the land was an issue before the High court and the Court of Appeal, the learned Justices erred in law when they held that the ‘appellants failed to prove with certainty the identity of their land and more fundamentally, the land in dispute.’

2. The learned Justices of Appeal erred in law in dismissing the appellants’ appeal (without at least ordering a retrial) when:

(a) The court already found that the learned trial Chief Judge did not give extensive consideration (per Azaki, JCA) or ‘evaluate the evidence of traditional history’ (per Oguntade, JCA) of the appellants.

(b) The two reasons given by the learned Chief Judge at page 129 lines 21-25 of the record for preferring the traditional evidence of the respondent to the appellants were rejected by the court.

(c) Their Lordships of the Court of Appeal also found that the learned trial Chief Judge did not evaluate the evidence before him properly.

3. The learned Justices having found that the learned Chief Judge did not make specific findings on the appellants’ claim for trespass and injunction erred in law and on the facts in reviewing the evidence adduced at the trial court and making findings on them.”

The facts of this case are rather simple. The plaintiffs claimed that the land in dispute belong to them through their ancestor, one Chief Olugbuji. The plaintiffs pleaded and testified that

“4. The plaintiffs take this action for themselves and on behalf of EWUOSHO FAMILY.