Busari Depoju Akande V Sidikatu Awero & Anor (1977)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

G. IRIKEFE, J.S.C 

After hearing arguments in this appeal, we indicated that it should be allowed, but promised to give our reasons later. This we now do.

Before the High Court of the Ibadan Judicial Division, the plaintiff, hereinafter referred to as the appellant, endorsed his writ against the respondents thus:-

“The plaintiff’s claim against the defendants is for possession of the plaintiff’s land situate, lying and being at Oke Ogunpa, Molete, Ibadan, Western State, now unlawfully occupied by the defendants.”

Pleadings were ordered and duly exchanged. The appellant’s root of title may be discovered from some of the averments in this amended statement of claim, particularly the following:-

(1) The plaintiff is the owner of the entire area verged deep “GREEN” in PLAN No. L&L/A8657 attached to this amended statement of claim. The plan is hereinafter referred to as the plan.

(2) The lands in dispute are the two areas verged light “YELLOW” inside the plan.

(3) The plaintiff and one LAWANI BAMGBADE became the owners in possession of the entire area verged deep GREEN in the plan by virtue of two deeds of conveyance to wit:

(a) No. 29 at page 29 in volume 58 and

(b) No. 41 at page 41 in volume 404 both of the Ibadan Lands Registry.

(4) By a deep of conveyance dated 5/11/61 and registered as No. 38 at page 38 in volume 487, the said Lawani Bamgbade conveyed all his interests in the land described in paragraph 1 and 3 above to the plaintiff and the plaintiff became the absolute owner.

(5) The defendants sometime ago broke and entered the lands in dispute and wrongfully laid claim to them by virtue of deed of conveyance dated 20/2/63 made in favour of the 1st defendant by one (1) Madam Adeoti Asabi Kuola and (2) Madam Taiwo Amoke Juola both of KUOLA family and compound and registered as No. 1 at page 1 in volume 634 of the Ibadan registry.

(6) The plaintiff was in possession exercising acts of ownership at the time of defendants’ unlawful entry to the lands.

(7) The plaintiff avers that the 1st defendant’s vendors have no title to the said land and the plaintiff will rely on the doctrine of memo dat quod non habet.