Busari Ayinde & Ors V. Adedokun Akanji & Ors (1988)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

L. UWAIS, J.S.C.

In this appeal the appellants, as plaintiffs, filed an action on 18th December, 1974 in the High Court of Western Nigeria (now High Court of Oyo State) at Oyo, against the respondents, as defendents. There were originally 10 defendants to the action but one of them Michael Opeoluwa died before the trial of the case commenced.

The plaintiffs’ claims, as stated in – their amended statement of claim, are as follows

“(1) The sum of N5, 000.00 being general damages for continuing trespass committed by the defendants on the plaintiffs’ land situate at Onikainkain Farm Iseyin District sometime in September 1973.

(2) Injunction to restrain the 2nd – 10th defendants, their servants or agents from committing further acts of trespass on the said land or further entry thereon and to restrain the 1st defendant from further disturbing the occupation of the plaintiffs on the said land.

(3) A declaration that the 1st defendant has no right to disturb the occupation of the tenants whose names and holdings are shown on the plan L & L/D 1884A respect of their holdings whilst the tenancy still subsists.”

Pleadings were filed and exchanged by the plaintiffs and defendants called 6 and 7 witnesses behalf. In a nutshell, the plaintiffs’ case is that they had been customary tenants of the 1st defendant. In that capacity the plaintiffs had individual holdings for about 20 years. During that period they had paid the customary fees for entering the holdings, as the annual tribute called “Ishakole”. The plaintiffs had been planting economic crops on their respective holdings. Sometime in 1973, the 1st defendant, as the owner of the plaintiffs’ holdings, complained that the plaintiffs did not show enough sympathy to him when he had a motor accident. 1st defendant therefore decided to punish the plaintiffs by making them pays, as fine, the sum of N400.00. The plaintiffs made the payment but to their surprise the 1st defendant brought several persons including the 2nd to 10th defendants to the land in dispute. The plaintiffs tendered a plan (exhibit 1) of the area in dispute and the plan shows their respective holdings and those of the 114 tenants they represent.

Similarly the defendants’ case is, briefly, as follows. The 1st defendant granted land to Egba tenants about 34 years ago. Amongst the tenants were the 2nd to 10th defendants who had been in possession of their respective holdings. The 2nd to 10th defendants planted cash crops on their holdings apart from the Egba tenants of the 1st defendant, there were customary tenants who hailed from towns like Ibadan, Oyo, Iseyin, Iwo and Iware.

The defendants also claimed that they had been farming together with the plaintiffs since the plaintiffs came onto the 1st defendant’s land about 20 years ago. Each individual having his holding. In 1958 the title of 1st defendant was challenged in court by one Tanimowo who was the agent of the 1st defendant on the land in dispute. 1st defendant’s Egba customary tenants supported Tanimowo in the case. There were other litigations, in which the non-Egba tenants amongst the defendants in the present case supported the adversaries of the 1st defendant. All these cases were won by the 1st respondent. As punishment for their misbehaviour or disloyalty, the 1st defendant repossessed the holdings of all those that did not give him support.

The repossessed holdings were not reallocated to new tenants. They were returned to the defendants in 1973 after they tendered apology to the 1st defendant. On the return of the defendants to the land, the plaintiffs and other tenants not affected by the repossession lay false claims on the holdings of the defendants and destroyed as well as reaped the crops planted by the defendants. In giving judgment for the plaintiffs, learned trial judge made the following important findings-

“On the preponderance of evidence before me I believe the evidence of the plaintiff as against that of the defendants and accordingly made findings as follows-

(1) I am satisfied that the 2nd to 10th defendants have never been the lawful customary tenants of the 1st defendant and that they have no farm plots on the land in dispute.

(2) I am satisfied that the plaintiffs are the lawful customary tenants of the 1st defendant in respect of the one hundred and fourteen farm lands indicated in respect each tenant in exhibit 1.

(3) I find as a fact that the defendants trespassed specifically on the farm land which were taken over by the Receivers appointed by the Court under an order made on the 30th day of June, 1976…