L. B. Folarin V. Oyewole Durojaiye (1988)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

OBASEKI, J.S.C. 

This appeal concerns title to land and the short point in it is whether the vendor from whom the Appellant bought and obtained a transfer of title, herself acquired any interest in the land which she could convey to the Appellant.

The Appellant was the Plaintiff in the High Court of Oyo State holden at Ibadan where he filed a suit – Suit No. 1/199/79 against the Respondent as Defendant claiming:

(1) A declaration that the Plaintiff is entitled to be granted a Certificate of Occupancy under the Land Use Decree in respect of plot 98 Orowuyewuye Layout, Oke Ado, Ibadan shown on survey site Plan No. LL. 3769 dated 10th September, 1965;

(2) N1,500.00 damages for acts of trespass committed and being committed by the defendant on the plaintiff’s land at plot 98 Orowuyewuye Layout Oke Ado, Ibadan;

(3) Injunction restraining the defendant, his agents, his servants and/or anyone through him from committing any further act of trespass on the said land.

Pleadings were filed, served and exchanged and at the close of pleadings, the issues for trial in the case came before Adeyemi, J. for hearing. After hearing evidence of the plaintiff/appellant and his witnesses and the defendant and the addresses of counsel, he delivered a considered judgment granting the declaration claimed – N200.00 damages for trespass and an order of injunction together with costs assessed at N350.00 in favour of the plaintiff. In his judgment, Adeyemi, J. observed and commented:

“There is no evidence that Alhaji Giwa himself executed a deed of conveyance in favour of the said Ramota Adeoye, but nevertheless it is my considered view that she did not need a conveyance in order to acquire or transfer her interest in the land. In the absence of a conveyance or evidence from witnesses to show that the land was ‘handed over’ to her after payment, all the interest she had in the land was a mere equitable interest. See Erinosho v. Owokoniran (1965) N.M.L.R. 479 at page 483.

However, on the evidence of P.W.s 1 and 2, I hold that the equitable interest of Ramota became transmuted into a legal interest as soon as she agreed to sell the land to the Plaintiff and possession in the land (which still remained vacant when the Plaintiff bought it about 10th September, 1965 or before) was “handed over” by the 2nd p.w. to the 1st p.w. on behalf of the Plaintiff and a deed of conveyance was later executed in February, 1967. In these circumstances, I hold that the legal interest in Plot 98 Orowuyewuye Layout, Oke Ado, Ibadan, also passed validly to the Plaintiff from Ramota Adeoye by virtue of Exhibit ‘I’ which as executed before the revocation of 2nd p.w.’s power of attorney on 18th May, 1967.”

On the issue of possession, the learned judge said:

“In this case, the Plaintiff is already claiming title in the manner provided for the Land Use Decree, but the Defendant is admittedly in actual physical possession and is also claiming title. Consequently, both parties, as I have already found, are claiming through the same source, i.e. through Orowuyewuye family. But having now found that the land is properly sold to Ramota Adeoye who has also transferred valid legal interest in the same to the Plaintiff by virtue of the conveyance dated 7th February, 1967 (although he in fact took vacant possession about 10th September, 1965 or earlier) and having again found that the same plot of land was sold to the Defendant by the Orowuyewuye family in 1971 after they and their attorney had sold it to the Plaintiff sometimes in 1965, I hold that the Plaintiff has a better title than that of the Defendant. See Olusegun Durojaiye v. Raufu Alade and Anor. O.Y.S.H.C. (Part 11) 146 at 149.

………………..

Also in Ogo Ibeziako v. Nwagbogu (1973) 1 N.M.L.R. 113 at 124, Coker, J.S.C. (as he then was) stated as follows inter alia:

‘If the evidence given by and on behalf of the Plaintiffs with respect to their own acts of possession on the land is accepted, as indeed it was, then clearly the Defendant had obtained whatever possession he had of the land in dispute by the very act of trespass which has grounded this case.’