Lasisi Morenikeji & Ors V. Laleke Adegbosin & Ors (2003)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

I. IGUH, J.S.C.

By a writ of summons issued on the 14th day of January, 1985, the plaintiffs, for themselves and on behalf of the Morenikeji family of Ibadan in Oyo State instituted an action jointly and severally against the defendants at the Ibadan Judicial Division of the High Court of Justice, Oyo State claiming as follows:

“(1) Fifteen Thousand Naira (N15,000.00) being damages for trespass committed by the defendants, their servants and agents in that piece or parcel of land, situate, lying and being at Aladun Ile Titun village, Ife Road, Ibadan in Oyo State of Nigeria in 1984 which land is more particularly described and delineated on a plan to be filed later in this case.

(2) Injunction restraining the defendants, their servants, agents, privies or anyone claiming through them, from committing any or further acts of trespass on the said piece or parcel of land.”

Pleadings were ordered in the suit and were duly settled, filed and exchanged.

At the subsequent trial, both parties testified on their own behalf and called witnesses.

The plaintiffs relied primarily on evidence of traditional history in proof of their claims to ownership and possession of the land in dispute. They also relied on a previous judgment in suit No. 1/64/84 as issue estoppel and/or res judicata against the defendants.

In their traditional history, the plaintiffs claimed to be the direct descendants of one Delesolu to whom they traced their title to the land in dispute. They claimed that they were the descendants of the said Delesolu through his daughter, Iwolowa, the mother of Morenikeji, their grandfather. They asserted that the land in dispute was originally settled upon by one Balogun Oderinlo, a great Ibadan warrior during the reign of Bashorun Oluyole. They claimed that the said Oderinlo made a grant of a large parcel of land including the land in dispute to Delesolu, another warrior from Abeokuta, who served under Oderinlo. Delesolu married Sikako and Sikako begat a daughter by name Iwolowa for Delesolu. Iwolowa married Lofintolu and they had a child called Morenikeji who was the progenitor of the plaintiffs. The farmland at Aladun Ile Titun village was granted by Delesolu in his life time to Iwolowa, his daughter. This farm land which includes the land in dispute was inherited by Morenikeji and the ownership and possession thereof have remained with the descendants of Morenikeji who are the plaintiffs in this case. It was Morenikeji who commenced the development of the village called Ile Titun after inheriting the land at Aladun from his mother. It is the plaintiffs’ case that after the death of Delesolu, Ojuolape who was his military colleague and friend, appointed one Lajinfin as caretaker of all the personal property of Delesolu at Oje, Ibadan. As a result, Lajinfin moved into Delesolu’s compound at Oje but seized virtually all belongings of Delesolu including his wives, slaves, goods etc. The plaintiffs stressed that Lajinfin was neither related to nor was he a descendant of Delesolu. He was only a caretaker of Delesolu’s properties at Oje, Ibadan as all the children of Delesolu at the time of his death with the exception of Iwolowa, his daughter, had predeceased him.

The defendants, for their part, resisted the claim of the plaintiffs. They, in turn, also claimed to be the descendants of Delesolu from whom they asserted they derived title to the land in dispute. In this regard, they relied on traditional history for their claim to title to the land in dispute. They claimed to be in possession of the land in dispute. With regard to their traditional history, the defendants asserted that Delesolu and Lajinfin were brothers of full blood who came to lbadan from Ogbomoso and jointly settled on the land in dispute when it was a virgin forest. They emphasised that Delesolu had no relationship with the plaintiffs or their ancestors. Both brothers adopted Delesolu as their common name because Delesolu was the elder brother of Lajinfin. After the death of Delesolu without any issue, his junior brother Lajinfin inherited all his properties which included his land and wives. They claimed that the defendants’ family is known as Delesolu as against the plaintiffs who are known as Morenikeji family. Exhibit J, report of an enquiry by the Secretary of Lagelu Local Government was tendered by the defendants. It was allegedly declared in it that the defendants were members of the Delesolu Family and that the plaintiffs were not. They asserted that the ownership and possession of the land at Aladun were in Delesolu and his descendants, the defendants, and not in the plaintiffs who are not descendants or members of the Delesolu family. The defendants testified as to how their ancestor, one Abioye, granted part of the land in dispute to Adeoye, one of the plaintiffs’ ancestors to plant food crops and how the plaintiffs forfeited the land when their ancestors failed to pay their rent otherwise called Ishakole. However, during the time of Suara Layiwola as head of Delesolu family, defendants’ family re-allocated the land back to the Morenikeji family for farming purposes by an agreement dated 27th April, 1968, exhibit M.

It is thus clear both from the pleadings of the parties and their evidence before the trial court that each side claimed ownership and possession of the land in dispute relying on their various traditional histories. Indeed, the defendants, for their own part, raised a counterclaim against the plaintiffs in which they claimed as follows:

“(a) A declaration that the 1st, 2nd & 4th defendants are members of Delesolu family.

(b) A declaration that the plaintiffs are not members of Delesolu family.

(c) A declaration that the land in dispute is beneficially in possession of Delesolu family except those portions granted to various families as indicated on the plan attached to the statement of defence and counter-claim.

(d) An orderfor possession ofthe area edged by doted blue lines on defendants’ plan and on which the plaintiffs planted food crops as caretakers for denying the defendants’ title.”