Olalekan Ogunsanwo V. Mukaila Oguntade (2007)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

CHINWE EUGENIA IYIZOBA, J.C.A.

This is an Appeal against the judgment of the High Court of Ogun State Ilaro Judicial Division in Suit No. HCL/18/2002 delivered by Onafowokan J on 17/02/2011 granting all the claims of the Respondent.

The Respondent’s claim against the Appellant and originally five others as contained in paragraph 30 of his 3rd Amended Statement of Claim and plan dated 9th June, 2006 at page 23 of the Record of appeal is for:
(a) Declaration that the plaintiff is entitled to the Customary Right of Occupancy in respect of all that farmland situate at Ishaga Area in Owode, Ogun State.
(b) The sum of N5, 000.00 only as damages for trespass.
(c) Perpetual injunction restraining the defendants, their agents or privies from further trespass unto the land.

?Pleadings were filed and exchanged by the parties. The case was contested on the plaintiff’s 3rd Amended Statement of Claim and plan dated 9th June, 2006 and filed 3rd November, 2008 (the survey plan is Exhibit D), the Statement of defence of the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 6th defendants

1

dated 28th September, 2004 and filed on 29th September, 2004 and Reply to Defence dated 6th December, 2004 and filed on 13th December, 2004.

?The case of the Respondent from his pleadings is that the land in dispute described in his survey plan Exhibit D is a portion of a large expanse of land which originally belonged to one Oteniya a native of Ajilete who first settled on the land. Oteniya had two children Jagundina and Alarotan. Oteniya had a worker named Akinleye who dwelled in his house. It was alleged that Akinleye put Alarotan in the family way and fled with her to Ado-Odo where Alarotan delivered a baby boy called Oguntade. When Oteniya heard the news, he demanded that Akinleye and Alarotan return to him. Upon their return, Oteniya gave his farm land at Oke-Ogbon forest to Alarotan and she and her husband went and settled on the land, built their house there and also invited their friends Lediju, Odunbunu, and Adesiyan from Ado-Odo to come and farm on the land which later became known as Ago-Ishaga. The Plaintiff?s case is that the land in dispute is a portion of the land given by Oteniya to his daughter Alarotan which her son

2

Oguntade and his siblings inherited. In other words, the Respondent?s case is that the land did not belong to his ancestor Akinleye; but to Oguntade by inheritance through his mother, Alarotan.

The Appellant?s case on the other hand is that the land in dispute is a portion of land founded and settled upon by Akinleye from time immemorial and that before Akinleye died he shared his land amongst his children on Idi-Igi basis; that the land in dispute is a portion of land shared to his great grandmother?s Idi-Igi. The Appellant is therefore laying claims on the disputed land as a descendant of Akinleye but the Respondent alleged that the Appellant is not even a descendant of Akinleye.

At the trial the Respondent testified as PW4 and called three other witnesses. The four witnesses adopted their Statement on Oath which operate as their evidence in chief as Exhibits A, B, C and E. The Respondent also tendered two documents at the trial which were admitted in evidence as Exhibits D and F. Exhibit D is survey plan No. LAL/D026/2003 dated 22/6/03 while Exhibit F is the document allegedly used in collecting

3

rent. The Appellant called eight witnesses who also adopted their Statement on Oath as their evidence in chief and were admitted as Exhibits G, H, J, K, L, M, N and P. The Appellant also tendered in evidence two agreements as Exhibits Q and R. The learned trial judge in its evaluation of the evidence led found the traditional history of the Respondent more credible and that of the Appellant materially contradictory. Judgment was entered for the Respondent as per his claims.

Dissatisfied with the judgment, the Appellant appealed by a Notice of Appeal dated and filed 28/04/11 at page 146 of the Record. Out of the five grounds of appeal in the Notice of Appeal, learned counsel for the Appellant in the Appellant?s Amended brief of argument dated 17/03/17, filed on 20/03/17 but deemed on 27/04/17 formulated three issues as follows:
1. Whether the learned trial judge was right when he held that the Respondent possesses the locus standi to institute this action having regard to the circumstances of this case. (Ground 1).
2. Whether the failure and/or omission of the learned trial judge to resolve the issue of paternity of