Chief L.a. Odunsi & Ors. V.francis E. Pereira & Anor. (1972)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

Parties

1. CHIEF L.A. ODUNSI, OJORA OF LAGOS
   2. CHIEF A. BANWO, ARO OF LAGOS
   3. CHIEF T.F. GIWA, ODOFIN OF LAGOS(For themselves and on behalf of the Ojora Chieftaincy Family) Appellant(s)

AND

1. FRANCIS E. PEREIRA
   2. CHIEF DR. F.A. AKERELE(For themselves and on behalf of the Pereira-Sheteolu Family) Respondent(s)

UDO UDOMA, J.S.C. 

This is an appeal against the judgment of the late Omololu, J., delivered on 21st January, 1967, in suit No. LD/599/65 in the High Court of Lagos wherein the plaintiffs, herein respondents, were granted a declaration of title according to native law and custom to 69 acres of land known as Sheteolu Village, situate and being at Iganmu, Lagos. The counterclaim by the defendants, herein appellants, for a declaration that the said land is the property of Ojora Chieftaincy Family and for forfeiture, was dismissed.

As endorsed on the writ of summons the claims of the plaintiffs read as follows:-

“1. The plaintiffs’ claim against the defendants is for a declaration of title according to Native Law and Custom to all that piece or parcel of land known as Sheteolu Village “situate, lying and being at Igonmu (otherwise called Iganmu) in the Federal Territory of Lagos, property of the plaintiffs wrongfully claimed by the defendants.

2. The said land is covered by a Crown Grant dated 23rd August, 1871, and registered as No. 392 of the Crown Grants Register.
3. The defendants have recently and persistently interfered with the rights of plaintiffs to the said land by preventing surveyors and their workmen from carrying on their work.
4. An injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with or in any way entering upon the said land.”

The defendants’ counter-claim as set out in the Notice of Counter-claim and in the statement of defence and counter-claim are in the following terms:-

“1. A declaration that the Ojora Chieftaincy Family are the owners under native law and custom of all that piece or parcel of land shown on Plan No. CT. 18/66 dated 26th March, 1966 and prepared by Mr. C.T. Olumide, Licensed Surveyor.

2. A declaration that the plaintiffs have forfeited their rights as customary tenants of the Ojora Chieftaincy Family on the said land.

And

3. Recovery of possession of the said land from the plaintiffs.”

Pleadings were ordered and duly filed and delivered. There was also filed and delivered a reply to the statement of defence and counter- claim wherein the plaintiffs joined issues on the averments contained in the statement of defence and pleaded long possession, laches and stale claim as defences to the counter-claim for the declaration of title and forfeiture.

It is important to note that in the pleadings, the identity of the land, the subject-matter of the claim and counter-claim, was not in dispute. It was also not in dispute that the ancestors of the plaintiffs were for several years in undisturbed possession of the said land and that thereafter the plaintiffs have continued and are still in possession of the land aforesaid. What was disputed was the allegation by the defendants that the land aforesaid formed part of the Ojora Chieftaincy family land; that the same was granted to the plaintiffs’ ancestor, one Pereira-Sheteolu, under native law and custom by the Ojora Chieftaincy family whereby the plaintiffs became and are customary tenants of the Ojora Chieftaincy family. There was no allegation that tribute was payable or ever paid by the plaintiffs.

Thus when the case came up for hearing the triable issues in controversy on the pleadings requiring decision were:-

“(1) Was the land, the subject-matter of the action, part of the land of the Ojora Chieftaincy family, and if so, was it ever at any time or at what time granted under native law and custom to Pereira-Sheteolu, the ancestor of the plaintiffs whereby the latter became customary tenants of the Ojora Chieftaincy family liable to incur the incident of forfeiture Or was it always the property of Pereira-Sheteolu and his family

(2) In the event the land was originally the property of the Ojora Chieftaincy family, were the equitable defences of long possession, laches and stale claim available to the plaintiffs so as to defeat the defendants’ title as claimed in their counter-claim