Chief J.O. Lahan & Ors v. R. Lajoyetan & Ors (1972)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

G. S. SOWEMIMO, J.S.C.

The appellants, who were plaintiffs in the High Court, Ibadan in Suit No. 1/98/67 sued the defendants, now the respondents, claiming the following:-

“(a) An order of the court setting aside an unauthorised deed of conveyance dated the 17th day of October, 1963, registered as No. 29 at page 29 in Volume 705 of the Lands Registry kept at Ibadan, made between the 1st to the 8th defendants of the one part and the 9th and 10th defendants of the other part which conveyance was made without the knowledge, consent, and authority of the Mogaji of the Tubosun family and the other principal members of the plaintiffs’ family.

(b) An injunction restraining the defendants, their servants and/or agents from entering the land described in the said conveyance or in any way dealing with or interfering with the same without the permission of the plaintiffs.

(c) The sum of SIX HUNDRED POUNDS (‘a3600) from the 9th and 10th defendants jointly and severally as damages for trespass committed by them upon the said land, which acts of trespass are continuing.”

In paragraph 9 of their statement of claim, the plaintiffs averred as follows:-

“The plaintiffs aver that the 1st to the 8th defendants have not the authority to convey Tubosun family land to the 9th and 10th defendants without the knowledge and consent of their Mogaji and of the other important members of the said family, and that the said conveyance should be set aside and declared null and void.” (Italics ours).

It is settled law that a statement of claim supersedes the writ; hence if some special form of relief be claimed on the writ and not in the statement of claim, it will be taken that so much of the claim is abandoned. So also where in the statement of claim a consequential relief is added to the claim in the writ such additional claim will be deemed as claimed before the court. In that wise the claim in item 1(a) of the writ of summons may be taken to have been amended by the additional claim that the said conveyance “be declared null and void.”

The case for the plaintiffs, who are the Mogaji of Tubosun family and seven (7) other principal members of the family, is that the land in dispute formed part of the Tubosun family property from time immemorial. The 1st to 8th defendants, who belong to a section of Tubosun family, are known as Lajoyetan Oyeku. In their statement of defence they averred that at a certain time the Tubosun family property consisting of four farmlands viz:-

(a) Anlugua near Idi-Ape

(b) Oke-Elere

(c) Ojo (this is the largest)

(d) Odo Onigege

was partitioned and that Odo Onigege was the portion given to Lajoyetan Oyeku section. It is not in dispute that the land the subject matter of the case falls within Odo Onigege farmland.