Samuel Adenle V. Micheal Oyegbade (1964)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

ADEOLA JSC 

This is an appeal against the dismissal of the plaintiff/appellant’s claim in the High Court of Ibadan in Western Nigeria. The writ originally was for declaration of title to land at Oshogbo, which the plaintiff claimed is stool land; £200 damages for trespass and an injunction to restrain the defendants and their servants from further acts of trespass. After pleadings had been filed, the plaintiff abandoned the last two claims and the case was fought mainly on the issue of declaration of title.

On the abandonment of the two claims, the second defendant admitted the plaintiff’s claim and virtually withdrew from the case. The contest therefore was between the plaintiff and the first defendant. Earlier, and indeed on the 8th July, 1960 and the 19th September, 1961 respectively, the plaintiff with the leave of the Court amended his writ and statement of claim by claiming the land as belonging to “the Laro family of Oshogbo” and that he sued in a representative capacity “for himself and on behalf of Laro family.

The first defendant also amended his statement of defence by an addition to his defence, pleading estoppel per rem judicatam, and specifically relying on the decision in a case in the same court 1/187/57 entitled Lawani Sabilesu v. Michael Oyegbade. Proceedings and the judgment in the case were put in evidence and marked Exhibit E. In that case the claim was dismissed on the evidence of the plaintiff himself that he and his brothers had parted with the possession of the land in dispute three months before the act of trespass complained of. In the present case the plaintiff/appellant in the Court below gave evidence in support of his claim for declaration of title and called witnesses. The first defendant, who was the only defendant, gave evidence but called no witnesses. His evidence was formal, he and his Counsel relied solely on the plea of res judicata and the judgment Exh. E.

As this exhibit is vital to the defendant/respondent’s case, it should be stated that the land litigated upon in that suit (Exh. E) is the same land now in dispute. The present defendant/respondent was the defendant in the case (Exh. E) and the plaintiff was the brother of the present appellant who sued for himself and five others all claiming the land in their personal capacity. The appellant it is clear was not a party to that suit.

After considering the case put forward by each side, the learned trial Judge in his judgment said:-

“As the pleadings and evidence in this case stand, I think that the plea of res judicata is important for consideration, before the facts are gone into. If the plea succeeds, it will be a waste of time to consider the case further, but if it fails, then of course the facts will have to be gone into in order to settle the issue between the parties.”

Then the learned Judge proceeded to find the following facts:-

“(i) The land in dispute in this case is the same as the one in dispute in suit No. 1/187/57. 1 refer particularly to Exhibits C & D and the evidence of the Surveyor, Ogunbiyi.

(ii) The present plaintiff knew of suit No. I/187/57 and the personal claim which was being made to the land in dispute by the first defendant. In fact, he instructed the surveyor to make the plan Exhibit D used in that case.

(iii) The plaintiffs in Suit No. 1/187/57 claimed the land in dispute to be stool property ( Vide para. 5 of Exhibit F and the evidence in Exhibit E), which is the same claim as the plaintiff made originally in this case (vide his writ and para. 5 of his original statement of claim).

(iv) Whether the claims in the two cases be in personal capacities as in suit No. 1/187/57 or for the family as in the present case it is clear that the root of title is through the family to Laro.

(v) The fast defendant has always claimed to be the owner of the land in dispute as shown by para. 8 of his statement of defence and the admission of the plaintiff himself.

(vi) In suit No. 1/187/57, the plaintiffs who were certainly important members of the Laro family failed in their claim for title to the land in dispute as Exhibit E shows beyond doubt.”