John Apoesho & Anor V. Chief Awodiya (1964)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

PER ADEMOLA JSC 

This is an appeal from the judgement of the High Court, Western Region, in which judgement was entered in favour of the plaintiff in a claim for declaration of title to land and injunction. The plaintiff in the case is a sub-chief in Ilesha and the chieftaincy is known as the Odole Chieftaincy. He claimed-

(1) that the land in dispute (known as Iloba farmland) belongs to the Odole Chieftaincy Family and that he is the owner; and

(2) that the defendants are not members of that family.

The issues which, as stated by the learned Judge, came up for the consideration of the court were-

(a) Is the property in dispute stool property of the Odole of Ilesha or is it Odole Family property?

(b) Are the defendants members of the Odole Chieftaincy Family?

The learned Judge resolved the second question in favour of the defendants, and found that the point had been adjudicated upon in a previous action that the Apoesho Family, to which the defend ants belong, is a part of the Odole Chieftaincy Family. The plaintiff has not filed a cross appeal against this part of the judgement.

In his consideration of the first issue, the learned Judge resolved he matter in favour of the plaintiff and he declared as follows:-

‘In my view the plaintiff is entitled to succeed on the first part of his claim for a declaration of title under Native Law and Custom to the area shown in exhibit A and edged pink therein as the stool property of the Odole Chieftaincy and I so grant him such a declaration.

The second part of his claim in his writ reads ‘an injunction to restrain the defendants from trespassing into the land whereas the Statement of Claim reads just a bare injunction. In view of the pleadings in- this suit and the main body of the evidence on this point which was directed at the acts of the defendants in disturbing the tenants of the Odole on the land and placing their own tenants on the land, there will be an injunction to restrain the defendants, their servants and agents from disturbing in any way the tenants placed on land by the Odole without the latters permission or consent. The injunction will also be to restrain the defendants from putting tenants on the land or collecting isakole from tenants on the land or farming thereon without the consent and permission of the Odole.’

The defendants have complained that they are aggrieved by the declaration and injunction granted in favour of the plaintiff and asked that these be set aside or, in the alternative, that the injunction granted be modified so as to allow them to continue to farm on the land. It was urged on their behalf, at the trial and in this Court, that as either of them is entitled to succeed to the chieftaincy of Odole, they will be precluded from using the farmland.

The attitude of the learned trial Judge was that if either of the defendants succeeded to the chieftaincy, as the land belongs to the stool property of the Odole chieftaincy, he will become vested with the ownership of the property for life and the injunction made against him in another capacity ceases to have effect.

Counsel for the defendants/appellants attacked the judgement of the learned Judge on two points, namely-