Mr. Jimoh Bakare V. Mr. David Ojo Dada (2016)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

MOHAMMED AMBI-USI DANJUMA, J.C.A.

 This is an appeal against the decision of Hon. Justice A. O. Odusola of the High Court of Ondo State, sitting at Akure Judicial Division delivered on the 27th June, 2014 wherein the learned trial judge entered judgment in favour of the claimant.

The claimant, now respondent by a writ of summons and a statement of claim dated and filed 10th September, 2013 respectively, commenced this action against the defendant herein the appellant claiming the following reliefs:
(a) A declaration that the claimant is entitled to the statutory Right of Occupancy in respect of the land located at No. 55, Odundun Road, Akure with all the appurtenances thereof measuring about 7819 square feet as contained in the approved site plan obtained by the claimant from the Akure District Drawing Office dated 30/8/56 and registered as No. 46/56.
?(b) A declaration that the wanton and forceful taking over of a portion of the land measuring about 15 feet x 30 feet by the defendant on 14th January, 2013 and the erection of one- room shop thereupon is illegal, vexatious, unconstitutional,

1

null and void.
(c) A declaration that the forceful ejection of the rent paying tenants of the claimant from the land taken over by the defendant is brutish, barbaric and detrimental to the economic well being of the claimant, the rent being paid to the claimant who is an old man being his major means of live -hood and sustenance.
(d) An order or orders of the Honourable Court nullifying the forceful taking over of aforesaid portion of the claimant’s land and restoring same to the claimant.
(e) An order of perpetual injunction restraining the defendant either by himself, agents, privies, servants or any person or officers of the defendant from further act of trespass on the said land or any part thereof and cessation of unwarranted harassment and intimidation of the claimant.
(f) An order granting N5, 000.000.00 (Five Million Naira) as general damages to the claimant against the defendant for continued trespass to his person and unlawful interference committed on the land.

The defendant filed a statement of defence dated and filed 23rd January, 2014. The claimant reacted by filing a reply to the statement of defence dated and file d 12th February,

2

2014 as on pages 55 to 59 of the record.
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The appellant was the defendant at the trial Court while the respondent herein was the plaintiff/claimant.
Whereof, the claimant claim against the defendant the reliefs itemized under Paragraphs A-F above.

In establishing his case, the respondent relied on both traditional evidence and exercise of numerous and positive acts of ownership over a sufficient length of time. The appellant on his part equally relied on traditional evidence.

At the trial the claimant called one witness and testified for himself as CW2 while the defendant called two witnesses and also testified for himself as the DW2.

At the close of hearing, counsel on both sides filed and exchanged their respective written addresses after which judgment was entered by the learned trial Court. On being dissatisfied, the appellant approached this Court vide a notice of appeal dated and filed 21st August, 2014 containing three grounds of appeal.

In compliance with the rules of this Court, appellant filed his brief of argument dated and filed 9th February, 2015 and deemed 25th January , 2016 while

3

respondent’s brief is dated and filed 23rd February, 2016. Appellant filed a Reply brief dated and filed 29th February, 2016. All briefs of arguments were adopted by counsel on both sides on the 1st of March, 2016.