Babatunde Ayinde V. Labisi & Ors (1970)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

MADARIKAN, J.S.C. 

Proceedings in this case were commenced in the Ibadan No.3 Grade B Customary Court where the plaintiff’s claim against the defendant read:
“( 1) Title to ownership and recovery of plaintiff’s land situate and being at Odookun, Ibadan bounded on one side by Ketuketu, second side by Kudeti stream, third side by Alapoefon, and fourth side by Kekuta. The value of the land is 200pounds.

(2) Injunction restraining the defendants, their joint and respective heirs, servants, agents or anybody claiming through them from further trespassing thereon or therein the land.
(3) Any other relief which the court can afford.”

At the trial, the plaintiff’s case was that the land in dispute was granted to his father, Odeniran, by Orowusi, and that it devolved on Odeniran’s children as family property. The plaintiff called a boundary-man as a witness and he testified that the land belonged to the plaintiff’s family.

The 1st defendant is a sister of the 3rd defendant, and the 2nd defendant is a son of the 1st defendant. For their part, the defendants also traced their title to the land to Orowusi who, they stated, granted the land to Ojediran, the father of the 1 st defendant. During the lifetime of Ojediran, he had a vegetable garden on the land, and also granted portions of the land to tenants.

As further proof of ownership of the land, the defendants stated that the parcel of land adjacent to the land in dispute was acquired from them in 1954 by the Ibadan District Council for the erection of a primary school and that compensation was paid to them for the land so acquired. The Bale of the Orowusi family also testified for the defendants.

He stated, inter alia, that:
“The land in dispute was granted to Ogunnike the grandfather of the 1st and 3rd defendants through their father Ojediran.”
“The grove next to the land in dispute was not granted to any of the two parties, but left for general use of Egungun and Ifa worshippers.”

In a reserved judgement, the court observed as follows:
“Although the plaintiff did not state it in his evidence in-chief, but through his cross-examination he was trying to establish that Aleshinloye family once claimed against him the land in dispute together with the one admitted by the defendants and their witnesses as belonging to him and lost the claim to him, and as such the land in dispute had become his own as a result of court’s decision on Aleshinloye’s claim. Copy of this court case and judgement was not tendered to the court by the plaintiff.”
and before dismissing the plaintiff’s claim with costs, the court made the following findings of facts:

“From facts and evidence before the court, I am fully convinced that the land in dispute was originally granted to the ancestor of the defendants and not to the ancestor of the plaintiff, and that the defendants are rightful owners of the land. The land does not in any shape or form belong to the plaintiff or any of his family.”

Against that judgement, the plaintiff lodged an appeal to the Grade A Customary Court on the following grounds:-
“(1) The decision is unreasonable unwarranted and cannot be supported having regard to the weight of evidence.
(2) The trial president wrongfully received inadmissible documentary evidence, i.e. exhibit B and C, based his judgement on them and thereby came to a wrong decision.    .
(3) The trial president erred in law in failing to find against the defendants on the ground of estoppel as they were privies to a previous action in which a claim against the plaintiff/appellant in respect of the same piece of land was dismissed.

(4) The trial president erred in law when he held as he did at page 12 lines 30-41. Assuming that Aleshinloye family claim which was lost to him, extended to the land in dispute, the judgement in that case cannot confer on the plaintiff or any of his family the right of ownership of the land, etc.

(5) The trial president misdirected himself on the evidence when he relied on the evidence of unreliable witnesses called by the defendants/ respondents whom the president said he believed.

(6) The trial president erred in law in failing to record a finding as to whether or not the land now claimed was the same as or included in a previous suit between plaintiff/appellant, and Aleshinloye family.”

At the hearing of the appeal before that court, the plaintiff sought and obtained leave to adduce fresh evidence, namely, to produce a copy of the proceedings and judgement in Suit No. 4/53 together with the plan of the land in dispute in that case, and they were admitted in evidence by the court and marked as exhibits F and F1 respectively. It would appear from the record that after hearing arguments on the 3rd and 4th grounds of appeal, the learned president did not allow the plaintiff’s counsel to argue the other grounds of appeal. After the defendants’ counsel had replied to the arguments on the 3rd and 4th grounds, the court adjourned for judgement.