Oladejo Adewuyi Ajuwon V. Fadele Akanni & Ors. (1993)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

 IGUH, J.S.C

By a writ of summons filed on the 19th August, 1977 in the Ibadan Judicial Division of the High Court of Justice, Oyo State, the plaintiffs, who are now respondents, for themselves and on behalf of the Ibala Arikoto Family, sued the first defendant now appellant, claiming as follows:-

(1) Declaration of title in accordance with native law and custom to all that piece or parcel of land situate at Aponrin in Ibadan – Ajia Road, Ibadan, in Oyo State of Nigeria.

(2) Five thousand Naira being special and general damages for trespass committed by the first defendant, his servants or/and agents on the said land in 1976.

(3) Injunction to restrain the defendant. his servant, privies or land agents from entering or committing further trespass on the said land.” There was a fourth claim by the said plaintiffs against the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th defendants as follows:-

“(4) In the alternative to claim (1) above. The plaintiffs’ claim against the defendants is for setting aside of the deed of conveyance made between the first defendant on the one hand and the 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th defendants on the 20th September, 1974 without the authority, consent, knowledge or accreditation of the plaintiffs of Ibala Arikoto family.”     Pleading were ordered in the suit and were duly filed and exchanged. At the trial, evidence was led in support of the plaintiffs’ case and that of the first defendant. The 2nd – 5th defendants were absent throughout the hearing although they were duly represented by counsel who, on their behalf, cross-examined all the witnesses who testified before the court.     The case for the plaintiffs who prosecuted the action for themselves and on behalf of members of the Ibala Arikoto family was that they were the owners in possession of the land in dispute.

The said land was situate at Ogbere, Aponrin on the Ibadan-Ajia Road, Ibadan. In suit No. CV/80/72 at the Grade “A” Customary Court Mapa, Ibadan, the Ibala Arikoto family members who were represented in that action by the 2nd – 5th defendants as plaintiffs claimed against one Lasupo Anisere a declaration of title to a customary right of occupancy to the piece or parcel of land described and more particularly delineated on Survey Plan No. AD/97/73, damages for trespass and injunction and obtained judgment. The said Survey Plan No. AD/97/73 covered and included the land allegedly trespassed upon by the defendants in the present action.

The plaintiffs’ case was that the 2nd – 5th defendants without the knowledge, consent, anthorisation and/or approval of the Ibala Arikoto family unlawfully sold a piece or portion of their said land to the 1st defendant. Following the purported sale, the 1st defendant went into this land. It was as a result of this entry that the plaintiffs, for themselves and on behalf of members of the Ibala Ankoto family, instituted this action against the defendants.

The 1st defendant, for his own part, claimed that he bought the land in dispute shown in his plan No. EBS 973 from the 2nd – 5th defendants in June, 1972. The four defendants sold the land to him for N2,200.00. When he asked for a conveyance in respect of the land, the 2nd -5th defendants informed him that the land was then the subject matter of litigation at the Grade “A” Customary Court, Ibadan. They advised him to wait until the determination of that action. The Arikoto family eventually obtained judgment against the said Lasupo Anisere, the defendant in the Customary Court suit, for title to the land in accordance with customary law on the 28th June, 1974. He stressed that the 2nd – 5th defendants represented the Ibala Arikoto family in that case. It was after the determination of suit No. CV/80/72 that the 2nd – 5th defendants executed a deed of conveyance in respect of the land in his favour. This was on the 20th September, 1974.

The 2nd – 5th defendants conveyed the land to him as the accredited representatives of Arikotokowosi family. He paid no further consideration for this conveyance apart from the N2,200.00 he paid to the vendors when he first bought the land in 1972. He was told by his vendors that Arikoto was an abbreviation of Arikotokowosi and he believed them. The 2nd – 5th defendants in their Statement of Defence admitted that members of the Ibala Arikoto family are the owners in possession of the land in dispute. They also admitted that they did not obtain the consent, authorisation or approval of the Ibala Arikoto family to sell their land to the 1st defendant.

They admitted that the plaintiffs’ family was known as and called Ibala Arikoto and not Arikotowosi family. At the conclusion of hearing, the learned trial Judge in a reserved Judgment, found for the 1st defendant and dismissed the plaintiffs claims. Being dissatisfied with this judgment, the plaintiffs lodged an appeal to the Court of Appeal which in a unanimous decision allowed the same and set aside the judgment and orders of the Ibadan High Court delivered on the 17th January, 1980 in the suit. In line with the provisions of the Land Use Act, 1978, the Court of Appeal, Ibadan Division, granted to the plaintiffs a declaration that they were entitled to a customary right of occupancy in respect of the land described and more particularly delineated in Plan No. AD/97/73 which included the land covered by the conveyance. Exhibit 3. On the claim for damages for trespass, the Court of Appeal was of the opinion that the purported sale was void and consequently awarded N500.00 general damages to the plaintiffs against the 1st defendant. An injunction was also granted restraining the 1st defendant, his servants, agents and privies from entering or committing any further acts of trespass on the land in dispute. This appeal is against the said judgment of the Court of Appeal. Altogether seven grounds of appeal were filed by the 1st defendant who hereinafter will be referred to as the appellant. These grounds of appeal, without their particulars, are as follows-

1. The learned Justices of Appeal misdirected themselves in law and on facts when they held that in so far as the 1972 transaction is void, then the conveyance, Exhibit 3, made in furtherance thereof is void also and did not operate to transfer any title to the appellant.

2. The learned Justices misdirected themselves in law and on facts when they held; as they did, that Arikotowosi is not the same as Ibala Arikoto.

3. The learned Justices erred on facts and in law when they held that the sale by the 2nd – 5th defendants to the appellant could not be regarded as sale by the accredited representatives of Ibala Arikoto family.