MR. Taored Majeologbe V. Alhaji I.A.D. Solarin (2015)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

MUDASHIRU NASIRU ONIYANGI, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

The respondent in this appeal was the plaintiff before the Ogun State High Court, Sagamu Judicial Division hereinafter referred to as the lower Court. The appellant was the defendant. The claim of the respondent before that Court as contained in paragraphs 14 of the amended statement of claim dated 10th day of May, 2001 and filed same date is as reproduced herein below:

(a) Declaration that the property situate, lying and being at No. 9/10 Alhaji Mojeed Sodeinde Street, Sabo, Sagamu, Ogun State is a joint property of the plaintiff and his junior sister Mrs. Adenike Odusina by virtue of a deed of gift dated 5th day of August, 1976.

(b) Declaration that the purported sale of the said property to the defendant in February 1994 by Mrs Adenike without the knowledge and or consent of the plaintiff is null and void and of no effect.

(c) An order of injunction restraining the defendant, his servants, agent, privies and whosoever from committing further act of trespass on the said property which has the following boundaries i.e.

(i) On the right by Lateef Sodehinde’s House.

(ii) On the left by Methodist Church’s Street.

(iii) On the back by Wusa Bello’s House.

(iv) On the front by a road.

Trial commenced before the lower Court on the 19th April, 2004. The respondent gave evidence and called two witnesses. In support of his case, the respondent tendered in evidence as exhibit the following:

(1) Deed of gift of the land in dispute dated 5th August 1976 admitted as Exhibit ‘A’.

(2) Certified true copy of judgment in Suit No. HCS/87/94 admitted as Exhibit ‘B’.

(3) Survey plan No. KLA/OG/11/2001 dated 28/03/01 marked Exhibit ‘C’.

At the close of evidence by the respondent there was move for amicable settlement. The move failed and hence the case proceeded to defence. The appellant failed to enter his defence after several adjournments and hence he was foreclosed. Upon an application by the appellant, the defence was opened vide a considered ruling of the Court on the 21st day of February, 2006.