Mr. Muhammed O. S. Olateju V. Alhaja Raliat Oyenike Sanni (2010)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

CHIMA CENTUS NWEZE. J.C.A (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

The appellant herein was the plaintiff/claimant before the Kwara State High Court holden at Ilorin (coram Folayan J). Suing for himself and on behalf of the family of Muhammed Ayinla Olatundun Olateju of Magaji Abudu Family, Ilorin, he entreated the court (herein after referred to as the lower court) for the following reliefs against the respondent: declaration; order of nullification; injunction and damages in respect of a parcel of land covered by a Certificate of Occupancy and more accurately delineated in a Survey Plan attached to the said Certificate. The respondent counter-claimed against him for damages for trespass and for the destruction of her block fence.

Pleadings were settled and exchanged. They were, subsequently, amended and exchanged. Consequent upon the consummation of the amendments to the pleadings, the lower court heard the respective cases of the parties. In its considered judgment delivered on November 21, 2005, the lower court not only dismissed the plaintiff/claimant’s case, it, also dismissed the respondent’s counter claim.

Being dissatisfied with the outcome of their claim and counter claim, the claimant and defendant/counter claimant have appealed and cross appealed against the said judgment of the lower court as appellant and cross appellant, respectively.

The cases which the parties presented before the lower may be summarized thus. In the main, the claimant’s case was that the land, the subject matter of the suit, was an integral part of a larger expanse of land which belonged to his extended family, known as the Magaji Abudu family, by inheritance. He maintained that, over time, the said Magaji Abudu family had been exercising acts of ownership over the land. According to him, Government acquired some parts of the land while the family sold some other parts.

More specifically, the gravamen of his case was that in January, 1992, the extended family [that is, the Magaji Abudu family] sold the particular portion in dispute to his father. His father, the Late Muhammed Ayinla Olatundun Olateju, during his life time, [precisely, between 1977-1992], was the Head (Magaji) of the extended family. In his capacity as Magaji, he [his father, represented the said family in matters pertaining to the land during the period.

What triggered off the suit at the lower court was that in December, 2001, and some other members of the family, met some people constructing a fence on the land. These people claimed that they were on the land at the instance of the defendant.

The defendant’s case was that the Government of Kwara State granted her a certificate of occupancy over the land. That was after the said Government had required it from the original owners, namely, the two families of Adifa and Magaji of occupancy; she was made to pay compensation to the said families through the State Government: a compensation which the appellant’s late father corrected on behalf of the Magaji Abudu family.

She maintained that what prompted the suit was her unfavourable disposition to the appellant’s request to her for a part of the land. It was her posture that incurred the wrath of the appellant who ordered the demolition of the fence she erected on the land.

From his six grounds of appeal, the appellant formulated two issues for the determination of this appeal. They were couched thus:

(1) Whether or not the learned trial judge is not wrong in holding that Exhibit D1 with file No.3124 relates to the land covered by Exhibit A (the Certificate of Occupancy No.8183) with file No.13124 and that the appellant’s father received compensation for the land in dispute vide Exhibit D1.

(2) Whether or not the learned trial judge was right in dismissing the appellant’s claims by holding that the receipt of compensation by appellant’s father through Exhibit D1 amounts to ratification of the void acquisition of the land in dispute and the void Certificate of Occupancy issued over same to the respondent for the private business and personal use and benefit of the respondent.

On her part, the respondent took the view that only one issue was sufficient for the determination of the appeal, namely, the question:

Whether on the preponderance of evidence, the plaintiff/appellant ought to succeed in his claims.