Chief J.I. Iledare Vs J.O. Ajagbonna (1997)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

OGWUEGBU, J.S.C.

In the Yagba Area Court Grade 1 holden at Isanlu, Kwara State the plaintiff for himself and as representing Ere Community in West Yagba claimed from the Kati family of Egbe also in West Yagba and represented by the defendant on record “a parcel of land belonging to Ogbagbo family in Odo-Ere situate between Lawiri River and Okuta gigiri hill on both left and right of the Federal Road Kabba -Ilorin and between Odo-Ere and Egbe township.”

The Yagba Area Court Grade I after carefully reviewing and evaluating the evidence led by both parties held as follows:

“From the facts above we are satisfied that the plaintiff was able to establish ownership of the land in dispute as the land of Odo-Ere and therefore the land between Lawiri river and Okutagigiri between Odo-Ere town and Egbe town is awarded to the plaintiff (Odo-Ere Community).”

The defendant who was aggrieved by the decision of the Yagba Area Court Grade 1 appealed to the Upper Area Court sitting at Lokoja. The court allowed the defendant’s appeal, set aside the decision of the Yagba Area Court Grade 1 and ordered a re-trial by the Upper Area Court, Ilorin. Both parties were dissatisfied with the decision of the Upper Area Court, Lokoja and appealed to the High Court, Lokoja sitting in its appellate jurisdiction. The court allowed the appeal of the defendant, set aside the decision of the Upper Area court and the trial Area Court.

The plaintiff’s claim was dismissed. On a further appeal by the plaintiff to the Court of Appeal, Kaduna Division, the judgment of the High Court was set aside and that of the Yagba Area Court Grade 1 was restored.

The defendant as would be expected has appealed to this court against the decision of the Court of Appeal.

Both parties filed and exchanged their respective briefs of argument. The defendant/appellant identified the following five issues for determination in the appeal:

(a) Did the Court of Appeal not misdirect itself on the facts when it held that the traditional evidence put forward by the plaintiff was accepted by the court of trial when there was no such finding (Ground 1)

(b) Did not the High Court properly interfere and make inferential findings which it was entitled to make from the primary evidence on the record (Grounds 2 and 3).

(c) Is the Court of Appeal not wrong to have held that there was no member of the defendant’s village who built a house on the land in dispute or near it and thereby came to a wrong decision that the defendants were not in firm possession of the land. (Ground 3)

(d) Does the finding of the High Court that the defendants had more acts of possession on the area of land in dispute not raise in their favour:

(i) a statutory presumption of ownership which was not rebutted

(ii) as well as a logical inference of ownership being in them as against the plaintiff (Grounds 3 and 4)