Paulina A. Daniel & Anor V. A. A. Iroeri (1985)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

O. COKER, J.S.C. 

This appeal is concerned with the estate of late John Saint Matthew Daniel. The land, subject-matter of the proceedings is situate at Ibitoye Street, Ilupeju, in the Mushin District of Lagos State.

The two parties in the dispute claim to derive title from his Estate. The Plaintiff’s (now the Respondent) case was that the land was part of the land granted to one Victor Olayiwola Saint Matthew Daniel by virtue of an Agreement between the Administrator-General and the children of the deceased and which “forms part of the portion appropriated to and vested in him”.

The statement of claim averred that by a registered deed of conveyance dated 4th March, 1961 the land was sold and conveyed to one Babington Adeniyi Haashrup, who sold it to the plaintiff by virtue of another deed of conveyance dated 11th July, 1966. It alleges that since 1953 he had been in possession and had erected a building on it In accordance with the building plan approved by the 2nd defendant the Ikeja Town Planning Authority.

Sometime on or about 12th September, 1964, the Defendant wrongfully entered upon the land, demolished the building purporting to act on the authority of a Statutory Notice issued by the 2nd defendant to demolish the said building. The Respondent instituted these proceedings in consequence of the demolition claiming against both the Appellant and the Ikeja Town Planning Authority, the sum of N2,000.00 (Two thousand Naira) special and general damages for trespass and for an order of injunction. The Respondent denied that the land formed portion of the land allocated to Victor Olayiwola Saint Matthew Daniel. Her case was that it was part of the parcel granted and conveyed to her by the said Administrator General under a scheme of distribution of the estate of her late father.

She produced in evidence a certified true copy of the deed of conveyance and of the Court order which authorised the Administrator-General to distribute the estate. She pleaded that her entry on the land was lawful and in exercise of her right of ownership. She testified that the building was demolished in compliance with the Notice issued by the Ikeja Town Planning Authority, and as the owner of the land, she complied with the order. It was not in dispute that the Planning Authority had the statutory power to issue the Order and there was no suggestion or finding that the Notice was issued in bad faith.

It was also not in dispute that that Administrator-General was invested with the power to distribute the estate amongst beneficiaries of the Estate of the said John Saint Matthew Daniel deceased, through whom both parties claimed to have derived title to the land. The question which has to be answered was as between Victor Olayiwola Saint Matthew Daniel and the Appellant to whom was this land granted by the Administrator-General The Agreement (Exhibit P9) was not the issue in this case, and if it was, the onus was on the Plaintiff who relied on it to prove that the land in dispute was part of the land allocated to Victor Olayinka Saint Matthew Daniel, and not to the appellant whose title is a direct grant from the Administrator General.

The trial judge found that both the Appellant and the Respondent failed to trace title to the Exhibit P9. He however found that the Respondent was in prior possession of the land and therefore was entitled to maintain an action for trespass against the Appellant. He accordingly entered judgment in his favour for N2,000.00 damages for trespass and in addition made order of injunction against her. The claim against the Ikeja Town Planning Authority was dismissed.

Before the Court of Appeal, the 1st Defendant, as Appellant, contended that the trial judge was in error in holding that she did not establish a better title than the Respondent. It was contended that the deed of conveyance by the Administrator-General in her favour assured her a better title as against the Respondent. It was further submitted that the trial judge was in error in relying on the Agreement (Exhibit P9) between the Administrator-General and some of the children of her late father. And in addition it was contended that the Court of Appeal was equally in error as the trial court in considering an irrelevant piece of evidence of one Body-Lawson in another case, that is, Suit No. IK/114/66 of 1st April. 1969 between one Latifu Sonsanya and Muse Sunmola.

The issue before this Court is whether the trial court and the Court of Appeal were right in their respective decision to the effect that the Defendant failed to prove a better title than the Respondent to the land in dispute since the Respondent did not postulate his case on a title other than that of Victor Olayiwola Saint Matthew Daniel.

Chief Williams for the Appellant has contended that the trial judge misdirected himself in taking the view that the Respondent, in order to succeed, must trace her title to the Agreement (Exhibit P9). He submitted that all that was required was proof that the parcel of land was conveyed to her by the Administrator-General and that it included the land in dispute. In the absence of any prior grant to any other person, she was entitled to judgment. The trial judge had himself found that the judgment in Suit No.IK/114/966 was irrelevant to the proceedings, and was not one of the matters which the learned trial judge relied upon for his decision. The Respondent did not file a cross-appeal or give Notice of Intention to rely on it to support the decision of the trial court and therefore it was not open to the Court of Appeal to rely on it to support the judgment of the trial court.

I am of the view both contentions are well founded. It must be borne in mind the only reason why the trial court found that the defence failed was because the Respondent (sic) did not relate the land conveyed to her to the Agreement, Exhibit P9. The trial judge was of the erroneous view that both parties were relying on the Agreement – Exhibit P9, whereas, it was only the Respondent who pleaded it in paragraph 4 of the Statement of Claim, and produced it in evidence. The Appellant denied the averment. The trial judge said:-

“It had been agreed between the said children by way of family agreement inter alia that the property hereinafter conveyed should be vested in the beneficiary as part of her share of the residuary estate of the Intestate. The “family agreement” referred to in the recital did not specifically mention the Agreement, Exhibit P9, one cannot therefore see the nexus

(1) between Exhibit P9 and Exhibit P11 and