Oladejo Oyediran & Ors V. Abideen Adegbite & Ors (2013)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

HARUNA SIMON TSAMMANI, J.C.A.: (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

This is an appeal against the judgment of Oyo State High Court, Ibadan Judicial Division, delivered by F.I. Oyelaran, J on 21st day of July, 2008.

The Appellants were Plaintiffs at the court below, while the Respondents were the Defendants. The Appellants as Plaintiffs initiated the action by a Writ of Summons dated the 25th day of March, 2004. A Statement of Claim was duly filed together with the Writ of Summons on the same date. However in the course of the proceedings, the original 2nd Defendant, Chief Oladejo Akangbe died and the Appellants were granted leave to substitute him with his son, Wahab Oladejo Akangbe, who is now the 2nd Appe|lant in this appeal.

Consequently, an Amended Statement of Claim was filed on the 25/2/2005, to which the Respondents filed a Statement of Defence on the 13/6/2005. The Appellants therefore filed a Reply to the Statement of Defence on the 18/10/2005. However, the Appellants filed a Further Amended Statement of Claim and Plan on the 06/11/2006 to which the Respondents filed a Consequential Amended Statement of Defence dated the 08/12/2006 and filed on the 11/12/2006.

This case was therefore brought on the Further Amended Statement of Claim and the Consequential Amended Statement of Defence of the 1st and 2nd Respondents. By the said Further Amended Statement of Claim, the Plaintiffs/Appellants claimed the following reliefs:

(a) A Declaration that the plaintiffs as representatives of the Jolaade Oyediran family are the people entitled to a statutory right of occupancy on all that piece and parcel of land situate, lying and being at Oyadare Village, off New Ife Road, Ibadan, measuring approximately 22,766.153 m2 and more particularly shown in plan No. OY/1228/2004/277 dated 15th November, 2004 prepared by Surveyor S.O.O. Opaiinde.

(b) N50,000:00 General damages against the Defendants jointly and severally.

(c) Perpetual injunction restraining the Defendants, their agents, servants, privies or anybody claiming through them from further trespassing on the Plaintiffs’ land.

The Appellants ‘claim before the trial court is that, the land in dispute was founded by their ancestor, one Adeseye a warrior and hunter, who first settled on the land. That Adeseye had three children named: Ajao, Erinle and Adewale. That Ajao had only one child, a female called Jolaade and Jolaade had four children called Oyediran, Salami Amao, Egbedara and Belewumi. Oyediran then begat Oladiti, Oyebisi (a female), Kunle, Ebunlomo (a female), Dejo, Jide Kolawole, Sunday, Adeola and Nihinlola.

The Appellants claimed to be the children of Oyediran. According to the Appellants, when their ancestor, the original founder of the land died, his land was partitioned amongst his three children and that the land they now claim forms part of the land partitioned to Ajao. They reiterated that upon the death of Ajao, his only daughter and child,, Jolaade, inherited the land partitioned to Ajao, and that upon the death of Jolaade, the land was further partitioned to her four children. According to the Appellants, it is the land partitioned to their father Oyediran that is now in dispute.

The Appellants further stated that, they went to the land in dispute but met the 1st Defendant/Respondent putting up a structure on the land, and that upon being challenged, the 1st Respondent informed them that he bought the land from the 2nd Respondent’s father; Chief Oladejo Akangbe. They further stated that when accosted on the issue, Chief Akangbe became hostile and threatened to kill them, whereof they reported the matter at Egbeda Divisional Police Station, New Gbagi. That the police were however, unable to conclude the investigation because two policemen involved in the investigation were killed. As the 1st and 2nd Respondents continued with the acts of trespass on the land, they instituted this action, claiming the reliefs as set out in paragraph 25 of the Further Amended Statement of Claim.

The 1st and 2nd Respondents did, not materially deny the Appellants, root of title to the land. The point of diversion about the traditional history of the Appellants’ title to the land is that, contrary to the Appellants, claim, the Respondents claimed that the land was founded by one Adebintan, a great warrior who fought both the Kiriji and Ogbagi wars, during the Yoruba wars- That Adebintan then brought his aged brother Adeseye to live with him on the land, and that the vast land was consequently shared (partitioned) between Adebintan and his elder brother Adeseye.

It is also the Respondents’ case that, the father of the 2nd Respondent bought the land in dispute from the Jolaade family as represented by Samuel Oladiti Oyediran, the eldest child of Oyediran and head of the Oyediran family, and Alhaji Amusa Salami, son of Salami Amao and head of Salami branch of Jolaade family. They contended that the transaction was witnessed by Alhaji Bello Adigun and other members of the Appellants’ extended family including their cousin from the Adebintan family. That the proceeds of the sale was shared in the hall of Chief Oladejo Awotunde, amongst all members of Jolaade family including the Appellants. That after the sale, the 2nd Respondent’s father took possession of the land and exercised acts of ownership on the land by selling different portions to other persons without being challenged or disturbed by anybody and that the persons who bought the land had built and are living on the land. It was also contended by the Respondents that the land bought by the father of the 2nd Respondent from the Jolaade family was never partitioned amongst Jolaade’s children. That the Appellants only started laying claim to the land after the death of Samuel Oladiti, the eldest son of Oyediran who spear headed the sale of the land.

At the hearing the Appellants as plaintiffs called three (3) witnesses including the 1st Appellant who testified as the PW3. The Respondents called four (4) witnesses. Three exhibits were tendered by the Appellants, to wit: exhibits P1 which is the dispute Survey Plan and exhibits P2 and P3 which are sale agreements executed between Samuel Oladiti and Amusa Salami as the vendors and Chief Oladejo Awotunde as the buyer. Upon the close of evidence, written Addresses were filed by order of the court, and in a considered judgment delivered on the 21st July, 2008, the learned trial judge dismissed the Appellants’ claim entirely. The Appellants are aggrieved by the decision of the trial court and hereby filed this appeal.