Lawani Ajeigbe V. Mr. Odedina & Ors. (1988)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

Parties

LAWANI AJEIGBE  Appellant(s)

AND

1. MR. ODEDINA
   2. ALHAJI ADEWALE
   3. ALHAJI RAMONI
   4. LASIBI AKINRINOYE
   5. MR. T. A. ADEYEMO
   6. SALAMI DALEGAM
   7. MR. B. A. OLADEPO
   8. TIAMIYU DALEGAM
   9. ARASI ELERO
   10. AMUSA TITILOPE
   11. OLANIHIM AGBEKE
   12. MR. SUARA
   13. MR. AKINLEYE
   14. MADAM SINOTU ADETUTU
   15. TIAMIYU AYOOLA
   16. ADENIKE ALIMOTU
   17. ALIU ISHOLA
   18. MR. OLANIRAN
   19. MR. Y. A. FOLAYEMI KEHINDE
   20. MR. RAIFU
   21. MR. M. ARIYO
   22. ALHAJI MOSOBAINJE
   23. AMODU ODUOLA SALAMI
   24. MR. M. A. ADESHINA
   25. TUBOSUN KAYODE
   26. ALHAJI LAYIWOLA AJADI
   27. LATEEFU IYANDA
   28. BUSARI AREMU
   29. SUMONU LADEPO
   30. TIAMIYU
   31. LATEEFU LAWAL
   32. MR. A. BELLO
   33. MR. YEKINU
   34. LAWANI KOLAWOLE
   35. BUKUAMINU SANUSI – Respondent(s)

NNAMANI, J.S.C. 

In this suit commenced at the High Court, Ibadan, the Plaintiff/Appellant claimed against all the Defendants/Respondents as follows:-

“The Plaintiffs’ claims against the Defendants is for possession of the Plaintiffs land situate, lying and being at Ogo’s Compound, Ojagbo, Ibadan. Annual value is N20.00 (twenty naira)”

Pleadings were ordered, duly filed and exchanged. At the trial 4 witnesses testified for the Plaintiff and many of the defendants gave evidence. It is pertinent to mention, as both lower courts did mention, that there were 3 sets of defendants to this suit the 6th, 8th, 14th, and 17th Defendants, the 3rd, 4th, 6th, 7th, 18th, 21st, 24th, 25th, 27th, 28th, 29th, 30th and 35th Defendants; and 2nd, 5th, 9th, 10th, 11th, 12th, 13th, 15th, 19th, 20th, 22nd, 23rd, 26th, 31st, 32nd, 33rd and 34th.

The third group of defendants were represented by counsel and it is infact in respect of their case that appeals were taken to the Court of Appeal and to this Court. The learned trial Judge in the High Court, Ayoola, J. painstakingly reviewed the case of the parties before arriving at his decision. He noted that the defence of the defendants who were not represented by counsel was that the land belonged to Ojo Dalegun originally, that the Plaintiffs by their conduct in a Suit No. 36/60 Bello Adelakin v. Buraimoh Abiodun Dalegun have acquiesced in the title of the family of Late Ojo Dalegun in the land in dispute. They claimed that they built their respective houses on the land long before the inception of Suit No. 1/33A/64 to which reference will be made later. He also noted that the defence of the defendants represented by counsel was that they were not aware of the dispute in 1/33A/64; that they bought their respective plots of land between 1953 and 1958 and that the Plaintiff and members of his family are guilty of laches, acquiescence, standing by and stale claim. On the other hand, the Plaintiffs case consisted mainly of previous judgments, on the land in favour of plaintiff Lawani Ajaigbe including 1/33A/64 (Exhibits B and C). Plaintiff contended that he had established title to the land in dispute and that the Court was bound to grant him possession. The Plaintiff claimed that the judgment in 1/33A/64 is binding on the defendants and that they are estopped from challenging his title. His case was that the defendants bought the land and built their houses on the land during the pendency of that suit. After reviewing the evidence led by the parties before him, and dealing with the authorities on the issue of onus of proof, the case being one of possession, the learned trial Judge arrived at some conclusions of fact which were bound to pursue the appellant through the Court of Appeal to this Court.

He said:-

“I am particularly impressed by the evidence of the defendants who have given evidence and of the evidence of the 1st defence witness. I believe their evidence that they bought their respective plots between 1953 and 1959. Quite independently of the evidence as to time they built their respective houses, even if I had not believed their evidence as to the time they built their respective houses or if I had some doubt as to that aspect of their evidence would not have affected the credibility I ascribe to their evidence as to the time of purchase of their respective plots. Their evidence on that point was unshaken in cross examination.

Furthermore, as shown by the evidence of the 5th Plaintiff witness at least one person had been shown to have purchased a plot in the area even without developing it. When one comes to the question of binding effect of judgment one considers time of purchase and not time of development of the property purchased. I find on the evidence before me that the 2nd, 5th, 9th, 10th, 11th, 12th, 13th, 15th, 19th, 20th, 22nd, 23rd, 26th, 31st-34th defendants bought their respective plots in the years stated earlier in this judgment (i.e. between 1955 – 1959).

As regards them even if the onus is on them as to proving that they bought their respective plots before the institution of the action (Suit 1/33A/64) against Dalegan, I hold that they have discharged that onus. In the result, the judgment in Suit 1/33A/64 has no conclusive probative value as against them. In short, they are not bound by the judgment … But these defendants represented by counsel rest their defence on an alternative pillar.

They raised by their pleadings equitable defences of laches, acquiescence and stale claim. On the evidence it cannot be disputed that these defendants have built on the land. I have no doubt that the Plaintiff and members of his family knew when these buildings were being erected on the land and did nothing about them”

The learned trial Judge having dismissed the claim against this set of defendants, the plaintiff appealed to the Court of Appeal. That Court (Omo, Onu and Sulu Gambari, JJ.C.A.) dismissed the appeal. Sulu Gambari, J.C.A. concluded his judgment in a way which must make the journey of the Appellant in this Court Hazardous. Said the learned Justice-