Chief Yele Oyeneyin & Anor. V. Dr. Akinkugbe & Anor. (2000)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

IBIYEYE,  J.C.A.

This is an appeal against the judgment of Olamosu J. sitting in the High Court of Justice in Ondo delivered on the 20th of February, 1995.

The 1st and 2nd plaintiffs now 1st and 2nd respondents in this appeal filed subsequent to an amended writ of summons, a joint statement of claim and reply and defence to the counter claim which were amended several times over and were eventually titled further amended statement of claim with the plaintiff’s reply and defence to the 2nd defendant’s counter claim. The 1st and 2nd defendants who are the 1st and 2nd appellants in this appeal on the other hand filed separate statement of defence with counter claim albeit amended respectively. The 1st and 2nd plaintiffs sought the following reliefs in their paragraph 27 of the further amended statement of claim against the 1st defendant.

“27. Where upon the plaintiffs claim against the 1st defendant:

(i) Possession.

(ii) N100 per day from 1st December, 1989 as agreed penalty until possession is given up.

(iii) N100,000 damages for trespass committed by the defendant, his agents and privies to Chief E. A. Akinkugbe (Deceased) land (sic) to the North and West of the area granted to the 1st defendant by plaintiffs in 1972 which is verged black in survey plan drawn by Mr. G.F. Okusanya licensed surveyor dated 2nd June, 1992.

(iv) Perpetual injunction restraining the 1st defendant, his agents and privies from committing further acts of trespass over the land referred to in (iii) above”.

Both defendants joined issues with the plaintiffs in the further amended statements of defence and the matter proceeded to hearing. The plaintiffs adduced evidence in person and called two other witnesses. The resume of their evidence is that, the plaintiffs traced their root of title to the land in dispute to grants made to their late father, Chief E.A. Akinkugbe, the Sasere of Ondo by Okedoko and Loduti and Ajaka families as reflected in Exhibits A and B respectively. The said two conveyances were made in 1962. Other documents tendered by the plaintiffs to establish ownership are the landlord and tenant agreement with the 1st defendant, letters of probate incorporating the will of Chief E. A. Akinkugbe, notice of plaintiff’s intention to terminate tenancy and recover possession and two survey plans of the land in dispute which are Exhibits H, F, G, S and K respectively.

The defendants equally testified in person and called four other witnesses. The 1st defendant’s case was that he was put in possession of the land in dispute by the 2nd defendant’s family under a lease in 1970. He cleared the land which was thick forest and commenced his sawmill business. Thereafter the plaintiffs claimed ownership of the land and he thereupon took a fresh lease from them (the plaintiffs). The 2nd defendant in 1989 equally laid claim to the same land and threatened the 1st defendant that if he did not renew the lease he (the 1st defendant) would be forcibly ejected.

The 2nd defendant’s case is that the land does not belong to the plaintiffs but to him through inheritance. He thereupon filed a counter claim seeking a declaration of title against the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs replied by countering the relief sought in the counter claim by saying that the land in dispute was part of the large parcels of land granted to their father by Okedoko family by a conveyance (Exhibit A).

At the close of hearing, the learned counsel for both parties addressed the court. The trial court in a reserved judgment partially allowed the reliefs sought. Thus, it allowed the first relief, stepped up the second relief to N2,000.00 per annum in accordance with Sections 5 and 6 of the Landlord and Tenant Law Cap 55 Laws of Ondo State of Nigeria volume III making a total of N10,500.00 for the preceding five years and three months when the 1st defendant was a tenant at will instead of N100.00 per day penalty agreed to by both the plaintiffs and the defendants. N25,000.00 was granted the plaintiffs for the trespass committed by the 1st defendant in respect of the parcel of land West of the sawmill but dismissed the claim for trespass on land North of the sawmill including the two buildings and wall fence in favour of the 1st defendant having found that the plaintiff’s family had not only sold that area to the 1st defendant but had also acquiesced and waived their right on the said portion of land. Perpetual injunction was granted only in respect of the sawmill and area West of it as well as areas described in Exhibits A and B shown on Exhibit K without the two buildings of the 1st defendant.

The defendants, now appellants are utterly dissatisfied with those parts of the judgment against them and appealed to this court on fourteen original grounds of appeal. The appellants subsequently, sought and got leave of this court to substitute those fourteen original grounds of appeal with only twelve grounds of appeal.

Parties filed and exchanged briefs of argument in accordance with the rules of this court. The appellants distilled the following twelve issues from their grounds of appeal: