Emmanuel Bamigbade & Anor V. Mr.thomas Ojo Adeyeri & Ors. (2012)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

JIMI OLUKAYODE BADA, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

This is an appeal against the judgment of High Court of Justice, Ikere-Ekiti Division in Ekiti State in Suit No.: HCR/1/2007 – EMMANUEL BAMIGBADE & 1 OTHER VS THOMAS OJO ADEYERI & 2 OTHERS delivered on 29th day of March, 2011.

Briefly the facts of the case are that the Plaintiffs now Appellants in a representative capacity instituted an action against the Defendants now Respondents also in a representative capacity at the lower court in which they claimed as follows:

“(1) A declaration that the plaintiffs are the persons entitled to the Statutory Right of Occupancy in respect of a parcel or piece of land situate lying and being at the Sao Agbadamu family Compound Uro Quarters, Ikere-Ekiti, Ekiti State.

The parcel of family land is bounded as follows:-

(i) On the 1st side by Adidemoyan house now inherited by the 1st Plaintiff.

(ii) On the 2nd side by Okearo land now owned by Sam Aluko.

(iii) At the 3rd side by Atiba Street

(iv) On the 4th side by late Fasola’s land and now by Sao Ojo Adeyeri’s house.

(2) A declaration that the plaintiffs are the bonafide owner of the communal property known as Akodi built on the part of the parcel of land with Agbadamu Compound at Uro Quarter, Ikere-Ekiti.

(3) An order of court that the defendants should account for the rent received from tenants on the Agbadamu family property three (3 shops built by the family) on which One Thousand Five Hundred Naira (N1,500) rent is paid monthly to the defendants since 1989 till the date of judgment and pay same to the plaintiffs.

(4) General Damage: N100,000 general damages for refusal of the defendants to yield the family landed property documents and other materials in their custody to the plaintiffs since the demise of Sao Adeyeri in 1998 for which the plaintiff suffered general damages. ”

The learned counsel for the Respondents by a Preliminary Objection filed at the lower court contended as follows:

(i) That the lower court lacks the jurisdiction to entertain the suit, same having been statute barred and deserves to be dismissed.