Sir Segun Keshinro & Anor V. Chief Akibu Alimiu Sanni & Ors (2004)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

NONYEREM OKORONKWO, J.C.A.

By this appeal, the appellant challenges the judgment of the Ogun State High Court delivered on 3rd day of April, 2014 wherein that Court in Suit No. AB/197/2010 adjudged in favour of the respondent as follows:
1. It is declared that the claimants are entitled to the statutory Right of Occupancy to all that parcel of land verged red measuring 13.118 acres in Survey Plan No. LDC/OG/039/2002 dated 08/07/02 prepared by Tayo Oluwaniyi Registered Surveyor, only as against the 1st, 3rd and 5th Defendants, but not against the 4th Defendant.

2. N50,000.00 (Fifty Thousand Naira) is awarded as general damages against the 1st, 3rd and 5th Defendants in favour of the claimants.

3. An Order of perpetual Injunction is granted restraining the 1st, 3rd and 5th Defendants by themselves, their servants, agents, privies, or howsoever from further acts of trespass on the land in dispute.

4. The claim of the Claimants against the 4th Defendant is dismissed.

The Claimants being dissatisfied lodged this appeal by notice of appeal dated 3rd June 2014 and filed in the Court below on 4th June, 2014 amended by Notice of Appeal filed 13/4/15 deemed 30/11/17 by which the appellant raised the following seven grounds of appeal:
Amended Notice of Appeal:

Ground One
The learned trial Judge erred in law when he said:
It is declared that the claimants are entitled to the Statutory Right of Occupancy to all that parcel of land verged red measuring 13.118 acres in survey plan No. LDC/OG/039/2002 dated 07/08/02 prepared by Tayo Oluwaniyi Registered Surveyor. when survey plan No. LDC/OG/039/2002 dated 07/08/02 did not describe or show the exact land of the claimants nor the identity of the land described with particularity thereby occasioned miscarriage of Justice.

Ground Two
The learned trial Judge erred in law when he said: It is the duty of the 1st Defendant to prove to the Court that the land of two acres bought by him is part of the land granted absolutely by the claimants to Ashaolu especially as the claimants have said it is not so thereby occasioned a miscarriage of justice.

Ground Three
The learned trial Judge erred in law and came to a perverse decision when he held that:
The Defendants except the 4th traced their title to the claimants. Therefore, they have admitted and acknowledged the original title of the claimants to the land in dispute. While the general principle is that a claimant must in a claim for declaration of title rely on the strength of his own case and not on the weakness of the defence, there are exceptions to that rule. One of the exception is where the Defendant in his pleading has admitted that the claimants was the original owner of the land in dispute thereby occasioned miscarriage of justice.

Ground Four
The learned trial Judge erred in law and thereby came to wrong conclusion when he held that:
I must note here that although the 1st Defendant did not plead the defence of latches and acquiesce, his counsel urged it on his behlf. Latches and acquiescence is a special defence which the law require to be specifically pleaded by a Defendant intending to rely on it. Having not pleaded it, I hold that is not available to the 1st Defendant, and by extension, the 2nd and 3rd Defendants too.”

Ground Five
The learned trial Judge erred in law when he gave judgment for the claimants/respondents in their personal capacity in a matter commenced and fought in a representative capacity thereby occasioned miscarriage of justice.

Ground Six
The learned trial Judge erred in law and also came to a perverse decision when he held that:
The 1st Defendant also pleaded and testified to the effect that the land in dispute was later acquired by the Ogun State Government consequent upon which he decided to apply for ratification and issuance of a certificate of occupancy. The claimants in this case have stated that to the best of their knowledge the land was never acquired. The onus was therefore on the 1st Defendant to prove the acquisition, but he never did. Exhibit F tendered by him is only a letter of allocation and not evidence of acquisition. Therefore I find and hold that it has not been established in this case that the land in dispute falls under acquisition so as to extinguish any right that Claimant may have over it.”

Ground Seven
The lower Court misdirected itself in law and breached 1st appellants right to fair hearing by simply jettisoning the pleading and evidence of the 1st appellant and failure to a pronouncement on them.

Flowing from these seven Grounds, the appellants in their appellants brief filed 6/6/18 raised five issues for determination namely: