Mr. Kayode Elabanjo V. Alhaja Risikat Adebola Ajigbotesho & Anor (2012)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

MODUPE FASANMI J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

This is an appeal against the judgment of an Ogun State High Court sitting in Ijebu-ode delivered on the 31st of March 2004.

The case of the Respondents as Plaintiffs in the trial Court is that the 1st Respondent bought a parcel of land situates and lying at Lagos Road from one Mr. Adeniyi Taiwo in 1977 and a receipt of purchase marked exhibit J dated 10th of February 1977 was issued to her. In furtherance of the purchase, 1st Respondent asserted that the said A. A. Taiwo delivered to her a deed of conveyance dated 16th October 1973 which was the root of title of A. A. Taiwo her predecessor in title and some exhibits by one Alhaji Sigunmaru who was the grantor to Adeniyi Taiwo. The documents were deposited with the Co-Operative Bank, Ijebu-Ode.

From the pleadings of the parties and the issues joined, the parties agreed as to the land which is the subject matter of the dispute before the Court. It was also not in doubt that the parties have their titles traced to one common vendor Alhaji Raji Sigunmaru alias Ajetunmobi. In evidence, the Respondents tendered several documents which included deed of conveyance between A. A. Taiwo as grantee the predecessor-in-title to the 1st Respondent and Alhaji Raji Sigunmaru as the grantor dated the 16th of October, 1973 as exhibit E while the Appellant herein as Defendant tendered exhibits L & M which are deeds of conveyance dated 20th December 1968 registered as 31/31/1108 and 30th December 1968 registered as 20/20/1108 respectively.

Appellant called three witnesses and tendered two exhibits i.e. exhibit L & M in support of his defence and counterclaim. The Respondents called four witnesses and tendered ten exhibits i.e. exhibit A-K in support of their claim for trespass and perpetual injunction. The Court in its judgment on the 31st of March 2004 gave judgment in favour of the Respondents. Dissatisfied with the judgment, Appellant appealed to this Court.

In accordance with the rules of this Court, Appellant filed his brief of argument dated 28th of February 2008 but filed on 29th of February 2008. It was deemed properly filed and served on the 5th of May 2009. Respondents’ brief of argument is dated and filed on 4th February 2010. It was deemed properly filed and served on the 1st of June 2011 Appellant’s reply brief is dated 9th June 2011 but filed on 10/6/11.

Learned Counsel for the Appellant distilled five issues for determination as follows:

(1) Whether Exhibit E which is the root of title of the Plaintiff/Respondent was properly admitted by the Honourable Court without more when indeed is the root of title of the Plaintiff/Respondent.

(2) Whether Adetola Adeniyi Taiwo the predecessor in title of the Respondent could have acquired a valid title from Alhaji Raji Sigunmaru by virtue of Exhibit G dated 27th of April 1971 which exhibits formed the basis of deed of conveyance between the said Alhaji R. Sigunmaru and Adetola Adeniyi Taiwo dated 16th of October, 1973 marked exhibit E and the same subject matter of dispute formed the basis of land sold to the predecessor-in-title to the Appellant herein which is the subject of exhibit L dated 20th of December 1968 and duly registered as 31/31/1108.

(3) Whether presumption of regularity will not avail exhibits L and M duly certified by the appropriate authority which document was duly authenticated and registered 32 years before it was tendered.

(4) Whether claim and proof of exclusive possession of land can displace the title of the Appellant whose title is prior in time to that of Plaintiffs/Respondents predecessors-in-title particularly when the two disputants traced their respective titles to a common vendor.

(5) Whether oral evidence no matter how seemingly credible can support and sustain document of title whose root are shaky and defective.

Learned Counsel for the Respondents adopted the issues formulated by the Appellant.

To avoid repetition of the issues, the appeal will be determined on issues 1, 2, 3 and 4. Issue 5 is subsumed in issue 4.