Oba Sunday Olagbeni (Onipetu Of Ijeru) V. Chief James Adebayo Oyewusi & Ors (2013)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

CHIDI NWAOMA UWA, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

This appeal is against the judgment of the High Court of Oyo State, sitting at Ogbomoso Judicial Division delivered by Mas’ud A. A. Abbas, J delivered on 7th March, 2007.

The Appellant herein was the 3rd Defendant while 1st-9th Respondents were the 1st to 9th Plaintiffs and the 10th-11th Respondents were the 1st and 2nd Defendants in the trial court.

The background facts are that the 1st Respondent as 1st Plaintiff sued in a representative capacity for himself and on behalf of Ikolaba Ayoola Chieftaincy Family, and the 2nd to 9th Respondents as the 2nd to 9th plaintiffs who sued for themselves and other Farm Settlers of Ogbomoso Farm Settlement sued the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Defendants now Appellant, 10th and 11th Respondents for the following reliefs as stated in paragraph 55 of the Claim as follows:

“55 WHEREOF the Plaintiffs claim as follows:-

(i) DECLARATION that the purported transfer, grant of the land in dispute situate, lying and being at Ogbomoso Farm Settlement by the Oyo State Government to the 3rd Defendant is illegal, unconstitutional, unlawful, irregular and null and void.

(ii) DECLARATION that the 1st and 2nd Defendants are not entitled to transfer to the 3rd Defendant the land acquired from the 1st Plaintiff’s family by Oyo State Government for the purpose of Ogbomoso Farm Settlement.

(iii) N50 Million Damages for trespass committed and still being committed by the 3rd Defendant on the land in dispute.

(iv) DECLARATION that the 1st Plaintiff is the family entitled to any reversionary interest, release, transfer and or grant of the land in dispute made by the 1st and 2nd Defendants.

(v) INJUNCTION restraining the Defendants by themselves, agents, servants and or privies or otherwise however from interfering or further interfering with the Plaintiff’s possession and enjoyment of the land and for further trespassing of the land.”

The then 1st and 2nd Defendants (now 10th and 11th Respondents) in their Statement of Defence denied the claim of the Plaintiffs. In response the 3rd Defendant (now Appellant) also denied the Plaintiffs’ claim in its entirety.

In a nutshell, the 1st Respondent’s case is that the lands in dispute (Old Farm School and Farm Settlement) were acquired from his family in 1948 through what the 1st Plaintiff termed “a negotiated acquisition” and that between 1960 to 1962 there was an enlarged acquisition which incorporated the 1948 negotiated acquisition from the Western Region Government from his family which was published in a gazette and compensation was paid to his family on the 2nd acquisition.

While the 2nd to 9th Plaintiffs’ (2nd to 9th Respondents herein) case was that the 1st acquisition of 1948 and the 2nd acquisition of 1960 to 1962 though from the 3rd Defendant’s family (Appellant’s family), the family had been paid compensation on the two acquisitions and as such that the 1st and 2nd Defendants had no right to reverse the interest back to the 3rd Defendant’s family who were said to be original owners having been paid compensation.

The case of the 1st and 2nd Defendants (10th and 11th Respondents) was that the Government never acquired any land from the 1st plaintiff’s family but it leased one of the two portions of land, the Old Farm School and Farm Settlement lands from the 3rd Defendant’s family for a term of 10 years and also acquired the second land from the 3rd Defendant’s family and compensation paid to the 3rd Defendant’s family on the acquired portion of land.