Iyiola Ogunjumo & Ors V. Muritala Ademolu & Ors (1995)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

KUTIGI, J.S.C. 

In the High Court of Oyo State at Ibadan the plaintiffs sued the defendants claiming the following reliefs –

“(1) Declaration of entitlement to right of occupation and grant of certificate of occupancy in respect of the parcel of land situate and being at Olomi Olojuoro Road, Ibadan.

(2) N2,000.00 (Two Thousand Naira) jointly and severally for general damages for continuing trespass committed by the defendants and or their agents on the said land, and

(3) Perpetual injunction to restrain the defendants and or their agents, servants and assigns from further entry on the land.”

See para. 19 of the Amended Statement of Claim.

After the filing and exchange of pleadings the case proceeded to trial. The 4th defendant however though served neither entered appearance nor took part in the trial. At the hearing of the case, the 1st plaintiff and four other witnesses gave evidence on behalf of the plaintiffs. The 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 6th defendants gave evidence for themselves with the 1st defendant calling one other witness. Two witnesses testified on behalf on the 5th defendant. ..

The case for the plaintiffs was simply that one Obegun their ancestor, settled on the land in dispute which is verged red in their Survey Plan Exhibit A. The said Obegun exercised various acts of ownership on the land in his life time. After the death of the founder his children Ogunjumo Ogundeli and Ogunlana from whom the plaintiffs descended continued to exercise various acts of ownership and in particular putting caretaker fanners on the land who accounted to the plaintiff for products of the farms.

The plaintiffs also averred that Obegun invited the ancestor of one Bello Adelabu to the vicinity of the land in dispute where he settled; and that they also granted part of the land to one E.A. Agboola. It was also averred that one Ayoade Akanji Ogunyemi now deceased, farmed on the land. When the plaintiffs discovered the presence of signboards and unauthorised structures on the land in 1979, they caused their solicitor to write to the defendants. That despite repeated warnings to the defendants they continued their building operation on the land in dispute until they sued them in court.

It is convenient at this stage to explain the land in dispute which as I said is verged red in Exhibit A. It will be observed that the area verged red is sub-divided into three portions verged yellow, green and pink respectively. The disputants in each of these areas are as follows –

a. The area verged yellow

The dispute is between the plaintiffs and the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 5th & 6th defendants.

b. The area verged green

The dispute is between the plaintiffs and the 1st defendant only.