Mogaji Lasisi Atanda & Ors. V. Salami Ajani & Ors. (1988)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

CRAIG, J.S.C. 

The plaintiffs’ claims in the High Court of Oyo State, holden at Ibadan were for:

“1. Declaration of title according to Native Law and Custom to a piece or parcel of land situate at Isale Oje, Ibadan in Oyo State of Nigeria the boundaries of which shall be clearly shown in a survey plan to be filed in the action.

2. N250.00 being general damages for trespass committed by the defendants, their servants or/and agents on the said land on or about July, 1972.
3. Injunction to restrain the defendants, their servant or/and agents from entering or committing further trespass on the said land.”

Pleadings were filed and exchanged, and at the end of that exercise, the matter proceeded to trial before Ayorinde, J. After hearing evidence, the learned Judge held that both parties had a “semblance of title” to the land surrounding the land in dispute, but he dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims because

“they have not adduced convincing evidence of ownership to the whole area of land in dispute to the exclusion of others…….”

The trial Judge also held that the plaintiffs had failed to prove the identity of the land in dispute with certainty.

The plaintiffs were dissatisfied with that judgment and appealed to the Court of Appeal, Ibadan.

That court, after hearing arguments dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment of the trial court. This is a further appeal against the decision of the lower court.

In this Court, the plaintiffs/appellants have lodged five original grounds of appeal, which I find to be extremely prolix, and I do not intend to reproduce them. However, these grounds appear to have been admirably incorporated in the five additional grounds of appeal which were filed and argued with the leave of this Honourable court. Those grounds are much more succinct and are as follows:

“(1) The learned Justice of Appeal who delivered the lead judgment concurred in by the other Justices of the Court of Appeal, erred in law by holding at page 149 lines 3 to 6 of the Record that “the respondents joined issue with the appellants on the question of possession vide evidence of 1st D.W. and D.W.3,” and thus came to a wrong decision in the case.

Particulars of Error:

(a) It is the principle of the rules of practice and procedure that issues are joined on the pleadings and not on the evidence adduced on behalf of the Defendants. The formulation of issues by a trial court, not based on the pleadings filed by the parties in a case may invalidate the judgment as laid

down in the case of Veronica Graham & Ors. v. Lawrence Esumai & Ors. (1984) 11 S.C. 123.

(b) The Appellants having established that their title originated from a rightful owner, namely, Balogun Oderinlo, the question of possession ceases to be a relevant issue in the case and it is a relevant issue only where the evidence of ownership is inconclusive as laid down in the case of Mumuni Abdulai v. Ramotu Manue (1944) 10 WACA 172.