John Falaju V. Daniel Amosu (1983)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

ANIAGOLU, J.S.C. 

The instant appeal has arisen from a decision of the Federal Court of Appeal which set aside the judgment of the High Court of Oyo State of Nigeria holden at Ile-Ife and delivered by S. O. Agbaje-Williams, J., on 28th January 1977. The said High Court had given judgment for the plaintiffs (now appellants before us) in a case which originated from the High Court of the old Western State of Nigeria of the Ife judicial Division and in which the claim was for:

1. a declaration of title to a piece and parcel of land situate at Ilare, Ile-Ife, shown and delineated in a plan GS 144/75 and therein verged green;
2. an injunction restraining the defendant, his servants, agents or privies “from remaining on or laying claim to the said piece of family land”; and
3. recovery of possession of the land.

The summary of the contentions of the parties was this:

For the plaintiffs – that the claims should be granted by reason of the fact that the land in dispute belonged to the family of Esinja Ololokun which allotted it to a member of the family namely, one Titus Agboola – for him to erect a dwelling house and that without the knowledge and/or consent of the family, Titus Agboola purported to sell it to the defendant; that the said Titus Agboola had no legal right to divest the family of the radical title to the land by the conveyance to the defendant; that the said purported sale conveyed no title to the defendant, it being null and void; that the said purported sale was a fundamental misconduct on the part of Titus Agboola for which he should incur a penalty of forfeiture of the land to the family; and that, in the premises, the family was entitled to recover possession of the land;

For the defendant – that the claims should be dismissed because the land in dispute was not family land but the personal property of Titus Agboola who sold it to defendant; that even if it was family land the claims should be refused because the family stood by and watched the defendant complete the original building on the land, resulting in a brand new house, without objection; that therefore it would be inequitable for the court to grant to the plaintiffs the discretionary remedies of a declaration of title, or an injunction, and that, in the premises, the claim for recovery of possession should be refused.

Both parties filed their briefs of argument. The plaintiffs based their brief upon the three grounds of appeal which they filed and which they argued together namely:

“i. The Federal Court of Appeal misdirected itself in law and on the facts in allowing the appeal setting aside the judgment of the trial court on the ground that the trial judge received in evidence matters not specifically pleaded by the plaintiff without giving adequate and judicious evaluation to the other evidence especially the evidence by both parties that the radical title of the land in dispute falls within the plaintiff’s family land as pleaded by the plaintiff.

ii. The Federal Court of Appeal misdirected itself in law and on the facts in holding that the trial judge did not exercise its (sic) discretionary power judiciously in granting the relief of declaration of title when it (sic) took into consideration irrelevant, extraneous matters and unwarranted inferences and insinuations prejudicial to the plaintiff’s case,.

Particulars of Misdirection

a. The defendant had only been in occupation of the premises in dispute for three (3) years at the time of the institution of the action.

b. The defendant’s counsel admitted from the Bar that it was after the close of the case of the plaintiff that he decided to call Titus Agboola his vendor as a witness to testify for the defence and further that it was after the defendant had given his evidence that he decided to call the said Titus Agboola.

c. The plaintiff pleaded and adduced evidence that the members of their family of which defendant’s predecessor-in-title is one had been granted parcels of land on the plaintiff’s family land on which they have erected buildings.

iii. The Federal Court of Appeal misdirected itself in law and on the facts in dismissing the plaintiff’s claim for declaration of title when there was incontrovertible evidence common to both parties that the radical title of the land in dispute belonged to the plaintiff’s family and the onus is on the defendant to prove a better title and the Federal Court of Appeal should have adverted its mind to the doctrine of caveat emptor.

iv. The judgment of the Federal Court of Appeal is against the weight of evidence.”