Olaniyi Orelusi V. Sadiku Lanlehin & 3 Ors. (2011)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

SIDI DAUDA BAGE, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

This is an appeal against the judgment of Owoade J, (as he then was) in Suit No. 1/818/90 OLANIYI ORELUSI VS. SADIKU LANLEHIN & 3 ORS delivered on the 6th of July 1999. The plaintiffs’ claim as endorsed on the Writ Summons is as follow: –

(a) Declaration that the Lanlehin’s family are the owners under native law and custom and entitled to the statutory right of occupancy of all that piece or parcel of land situate, lying and being at Odo-Ona Elewe, Oleyo Road, Ibadan more particularly described and delineated on survey Plan No. LAY/DO/12/90 drawn by L.A. Animashaun Licensed Surveyor attached to the statement of claim.

(b) The sum of N5,000:00 (Five thousand Naira only) being special and general damages for trespass committed by the defendant and his servants by entering unto the land and bulldozing crops and physical structures erected thereon between January and October, 1990.”

(c) Perpetual injunction restraining the defendant, his servants, agent, privies and his vendors and/or anyone claiming through or on his behalf from committing any further acts of trespass on the land.

Briefly, the facts culminating in this appeal are as follows: –

The Respondents being the plaintiffs at the trial court as per their pleadings and evidence, based on original settlement, possession and act of ownership. The plaintiffs filed their statement of claim called seven witnesses and tendered Exhibit ‘A’ plan of the land in dispute, Exhibit ‘B’ certified true copy of judgment in Suit No. 1/456/75 between Bolarinwa and Lajide, Exhibit ‘C’ certified true copy of judgment in Suit No. 1/258/81 between Orelusi and Funso Odeleye and Exhibit ‘D’ certified true copy of Ruling in the committal proceedings in Suit No. 1/258/81 between (defendant) and Madam Mofiamo Lanlehin (2nd Defendant) & 5 ors.

The defendant by his pleading and evidence based on purchase from Oduleye’s family, who also based their title on settlement, acts of ownership and Long possession. The Defendant also filed an amended statement of defence, called seven witness ‘F’ tendered Exhibit ‘E’ (his deed of conveyance) and Exhibit ‘F’ (a counter plan). The main thrust of the Defendants, defence in paragraphs 15-21 and paragraph 35 were facts raising equitable defence of estoppel by conduct and acquiescence. The Trial Court in its judgment found for and granted the claims of the Respondents. Dissatisfied with the judgment, the Appellant filed a Notice of Appeal dated 13th day of August, 1999 at pages 154 -155 of the record, containing 3 grounds of appeal. The Appellant also filed an Amended Notice of Appeal dated the 21st March, 2005 and filed on the 17th of May, 2005. Arising from the Seven (7) Grounds of Appeal contained in the Appellants Amended Notice of Appeal, the following three issues were determination as follows, at page 3 of the Appellants Brief of Argument viz:-

(1) Whether or not the Learned Trial Judge was in error in rejecting the defence of estoppel by conduct raised by the Appellant? This issue covers ground 1 and 5 of the amended ground of Appeal.

(2) Whether or not the learned trial Judge’s evaluation of evidence is wrong and inadequate and has led to a wrong conclusion in granting the declaration sought and thereby occasioned a miscarriage of justice and his decision should be set aside? This issue covers grounds 2, 3, 4, 6 and 7.

(3) Whether or not this is a Proper case in which the Court of Appeal should interfere with the findings and conclusions of the learned trial judge for wrong appraisal of evidence, set aside his Judgment, refuse declaration over the area verged ‘Yellow in Exhibit ‘A’ over which the Appellant has proved acquiescence against the Respondent (this issue covers ground 6 and 7 of the amended grounds of appeal)

On the part of the Respondent, the following three (3) issues were formulated for the determination of the appeal

(1) Whether the rejection of the defence or plea of estoppel by conduct by the trial Judge was valid.

(2) Whether the evaluation of the evidence by the learned trial Judge was inadequate and improper and has led to a miscarriage of Justice.