Dauda Gbadamosi & Ors. V. Yusuf Ajibode & Ors. (2012)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

ADZIRA GANA MSHELIA, J.C.A, (Delivering Leading the Judgment)

The plaintiffs who are the appellants herein had claimed against the Defendants before the lower court as per their Further Amended Statement of Claim dated 25th day of April, 2002 the following reliefs:-

(a) Declaration that the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th defendants are not members of Aidokun-Ogbo family of Ewupe.

(b) Declaration that purported power of Attorney dated 20/7/80 and the Deed of Conveyance dated 4/9/85 purportedly executed jointly by the 1st to 6th defendants and other persons named therein and/or their representatives are irregular, unlawful null, void and of no effect whatsoever.

(c) An order setting aside all sales and transactions effected under or pursuant to the purported power of Attorney in respect of Aidokun-Ogbo family land.

(d) Perpetual injunctions restraining the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th defendants jointly and severally from parading themselves as members of Aidokun-Ogbo family of Ewupe.

(e) Forfeiture of the tenancy enjoyed by the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th defendants and other descendants of Ajibode family over Aidokun-Ogbo family land at Ewupe on the grounds of misconduct.

(f) Perpetual injunction restraining the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th defendants by themselves or as members of Ajibola family, their servants, agents and privies from dealing with Aidokun-Ogbo family land in any capacity. See pages 170 – 178 of the record.

The 1st – 5th Defendants relied on a joint statement of defence dated 25/2/97 at pages 114 – 120 of the record. While the 6th defendant filed an Amended statement of defence dated 19th May, 2005 appearing at pages 183 – 184 of the record.

The case for the Plaintiffs is that they are direct descendant of one Aidokun-Ogbo who founded and settled on Ewupe land, the subject matter of this suit, a long time ago. It is their contention that the Defendants not are descendants of this individual, that rather, they are customary tenants, who are descendants of one Ajibode. Having become aware that the defendants are arrogating to themselves certain rights, ownership, like disposing off the land and executing Power of Attorney, and subsequently denying the overlordship of the Plaintiffs, the latter are suing for the orders set out supra in the Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim.

It is the case for the Defendants, also in summary that they also are descendants of this Aidokun-Ogbo, and are not customary tenants. It is their contention that they have a right to dispose of the property and had been doing so in conjunction with some of the plaintiffs.

At the hearing, the plaintiffs adduced evidence through six witnesses and closed their case. The 1st – 5th Defendants jointly put evidence through 9 witnesses. While the 6th Defendant offered no evidence having given notice of admission of the plaintiffs’ case vide his Amended Statement of Defence dated 19/5/05 appearing at pages 183 – 184 of the record, written addresses were filed and exchanged by parties. In a considered judgment, the learned trial judge dismissed the plaintiffs’ claim (a), granted claims (b) and (c) while claims (d) and. (e) were refused. Claim (f) was granted with variation.

Aggrieved with parts of the judgment of the High Court of Justice Ogun State, sitting in Ota Judicial Division, delivered by Solanke J. on the 25th day of May 2002 Plaintiffs/Appellants lodged an appeal to this court their notice of Appeal dated 9th August, 2007 and filed same date containing seven Grounds of Appeal.

In compliance with the practice of this court parties filed and exchanged briefs of argument. Appellants, brief of argument settled by Adetunji Onabawo Esq. was filed on 24/6/07 but deemed properly filed on 9/12/09. Respondents’ brief of argument settled by Dele – Babalola Esq. was filed on 12/5/10. Appellants’ filed a reply brief on 24/5/10. When the appeal came up for hearing Appellants’ Counsel adopted both the Appellants brief of argument and reply brief and urged the court to allow the appeal. While respondents’ Counsel adopted the respondents’ brief of argument and urged the court to dismiss the appeal with substantial costs.