Samuel Ilesanmi V. Gabriel Ogunleye & Anor (2016)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

MOHAMMED AMBI-USI DANJUMA, J.C.A.

This is an appeal against the decision of Ondo State High Court of Justice sitting at Ikare-Akoko delivered by Hon. Justice N. S. Adeyanju on the 6th day of August, 2013 in suit No. HIK/24/2008, whereat the 1st and 2nd plaintiffs/respondents suit against appellants/defendants succeeded.

The trial Court had allowed the claims of the plaintiffs now respondents for forfeiture of land granted to 1st defendant/appellant for cultivation of arable crops; and directed that appellant or anybody claiming through him to vacate the land in dispute and further ordered or restrained appellant or any person claiming through him from further entering, farming on, alienating or doing anything inimical to the interest of the 1st respondent’s Iye family of Arigidi-Akoko, on the family land known to both parties as such.

The appellant felt dissatisfied with the decision and hence this appeal brought by a notice of appeal dated 6/8/2013 and filed 12/8/2013.

In the appellant’s brief of argument filed on 22-2-2014 which was adopted, two issues for determination have been

1

raised. They are:
1. Whether Exhibit D2 was rightly expunged from the records by the learned trial judge (Ground 1).
2. Whether, considering the facts of this case, the appellant challenged the title of his overlord thereby forfeiting all rights previously appertaining to him in relation to the land in dispute as a customary tenant or whether an order of forfeiture ought to have been granted in the circumstances of this case.

The respondents adopted the two issues formulated supra in his own respondent’s brief of argument dated 31-3-2014 and filed on —-

Arguments of the appellants on:
ISSUE ONE:
On this issue, the appellant, by his counsel referred us to the pleadings of the appellant as 1st defendant denying paragraph 5 of the statement of claim and admitting a grant to him about the year 1981 vide documents which he pleaded. Learned counsel refers to the evidence of PW1 which supports the grant to appellant of the land for farming. That the PW1 said they gave land to the appellant to farm maize and other arable crops. The evidence of PW2 and PW3 to the effect that the authorized leaders (or head of the family and another

2

were the grantors on behalf of the Iye family was referred to in affirmation of the fact that he was granted the land for farming by the family.

The learned counsel further in submission pointed out that Exhibit D2 was tendered by the appellant/defendant in corroboration or affirmation of the evidence of grant to him as testified to by the PW1, PW2 and PW3. He wondered why the learned trial judge expunged the document from the evidence after its admission as an exhibit on the ground that it was found to be an inadmissible registrable document of title under Section 16 of the Lands Instrument Registration Laws of Ondo State.

The learned counsel argued that that finding or view of the trial judge was perverse and not supported by the law. Learned counsel is of the view that Exhibit ‘D’ does not qualify as an instrument as defined by Section 2 of the Land Instruments Registration Laws of Ondo State; and that it is therefore not caught or covered by Section 16 of that Law and needs not be registered before it can be used in evidence (mainly to show the grant).

?It was conceded that while Exhibit D2 is not admissible as proof of title