Chief Adefioye Adedeji V. J. O. Oloso & Anor (2007)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

A. OGUNTADE, J.S.C

The appellant was the plaintiff at the Ilesha High Court and the respondents were the defendants. The appellant (herein after referred to as ‘plaintiff’) in his amended statement of claim dated 16/11/88 claimed against the respondents (hereinafter referred to as ‘the defendants’) the following reliefs:

“(i) A declaration that the Risawe of Ilesha by virtue of his office under Ijesha native law and custom and by the provisions of the Chiefs Law of Oyo State is the only person entitled to a statutory right of occupancy in respect of all the land situate within his palace or official residence called Akodi/Ereja quarter, Ilesa.

(ii) A declaration that the rooms occupied as shops by the defendants at 18, Ereja quarter, Ilesa are situate within Risawe chieftaincy palace (Akodi), lsida, Ilesa.

(iii) Forfeiture of the 2nd defendant’s right of user, licence or tenancy conferred under native law and custom.

(iv) Ejectment of the defendants from aforesaid rooms or shops.

(v) Account and payment to the plaintiff of all rents paid or payable in respect of the rooms or shops at the rate of N50 per shop per month as from 1st January, 1973 until the final determination of this suit.”The parties later filed and exchanged pleadings. The suit was heard by Ademakinwa, J. On the state of pleadings upon which the suit was heard, the defendants called evidence first. They called two witnesses in addition to the 1st defendant. The plaintiff testified in support of his claims. On 26-06-96, the trial Judge in his judgment dismissed the plaintiff’s suit. The plaintiff was dissatisfied with the judgment. He brought an appeal before the Court of Appeal, lbadan (herein after referred to as ‘the court below’). The court below, on 3-4- 2001 in a unanimous decision dismissed plaintiff’s appeal. Still dissatisfied, the plaintiff has come on a final appeal before this court. In his appellant’s brief, plaintiff’s counsel formulated for determination in this appeal four issues which are:

“(1) Whether the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal were right in affirming the findings of the court of first instance that there was no settlement of issues at the proceedings of 6/2/90 amounting to a consent judgment in respect of the issue of ownership of the land-in dispute.

(2) Whether the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal were right in affirming the judgment of the court of first instance that the transaction between the appellant’s grandfather and the 2nd respondent’s father amounted to a sale of the land-in-dispute.

(3) Whether the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal duly and sufficiently considered issues numbers 3 and 4 submitted to the court for adjudication.

(4) Whether the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal were right in raising suo moto and deciding the issue of laches and acquiescence without the parties being heard on the issue, and if so, whether the appellant was in fact guilty of laches and acquiescence.”The respondents, by their counsel adopted the four issues formulated by the appellant for determination. I intend to consider the issues serially. It is helpful to expose fully the facts pleaded by the parties in their pleadings for an appreciation of the issues as discussed in this judgment.

The plaintiff pleaded that the 1st defendant was a tenant in two of the plaintiff’s shops within Risawe chieftaincy palace. He further pleaded that the 2nd defendant’s father, Samuel Olowofoyeku was a licensee to his father, Chief Omole Adedeji in respect of an apartment containing the shops now in dispute. The apartment was situate on a stool land belonging to the Risawe chieftaincy family. Being a stool land, no member of the Risawe family could alienate it. The stool land was identified as being at Isida/Ereja quarters, Ilesha. The plaintiff pleaded the history of the devolution of the land in the Risawe family. It was pleaded that the 2nd defendant’s senior brother as head of the 2nd defendant’s family continued to pay traditional tributes to the successors to plaintiff’s grandfather as Risawe after the death of both plaintiffs’ grandfather and the defendant’s father. There arose a dispute within the Risawe chieftaincy family as to succession to the stool. The dispute was the subject of court litigation which lasted between 1975 and 1985. The Risawe chieftaincy stool as a result could not be filled. The 2nd defendant’s senior brother continued to acknowledge the Risawe family ownership of the land until his death in 1972. The plaintiff succeeded to the Risawe stool in 1985. The 1st defendant however refused to acknowledge the plaintiff as the owner of two shops in the apartment in respect of which the defendant’s father had been a licensee to the Risawe family. Rather, he acknowledged the 2nd defendant’s family as his landlord.

The plaintiff caused letters to be sent to the 2nd defendant protesting the development and asking for his reaction. The 2nd defendant reacted claiming that the land belonged to his family. The plaintiff then brought his suit claiming as earlier stated above.

In his statement of defence, the 1st defendant pleaded that he became a tenant to 2nd defendant family in 1963 and that he had since been paying rents to the family. The 2nd defendant pleaded that the shops in dispute were built by his father Samuel Olowofoyeku between 1910 and 1911 on a piece of land granted to him in perpetuity by a plaintiff’s grandfather. The 2nd defendant’s father in ‘thankful consideration’ gave 3,000 cowries and two bottles of gin to plaintiff’s Grandfather. These were shared amongst members of the RISAWE family. The family of the 2nd defendant succeeded into the interest of Samuel Olowofoyeku at his death and had since remained on the land. They also put tenants in some of the shops. The 2nd defendant’s family has since not paid any tribute or rent to the plaintiff’s family.