Theophilus O. Jaiyeola (for Himself and on Behalf of All the Children of the Late Gbadamosi Adunola Jaiyeola) V. Olaojo Abioye (2002)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

AKINTAN, J.C.A.

The appellant, Theophilus Jaiyeola, was the plaintiff, while the respondent, Olaojo Abioye, was the defendant in this action, instituted at Ibadan High Court as suit No. I/501/85. The dispute that led to the institution of the action was over a large parcel of land, situate and being at Olodo village, Off Iwo Road, Ibadan. The plaintiff’s claim as set out in paragraph 18 of the further amended statement of claim is as follows:-

(1) N10,000 damages for trespass committed and still being committed by the defendant and or his agents and servants on the plaintiff’s land situate at Olodo village Off Iwo Road, Ibadan, as contained in the survey plan No. AT/Y. 1684 prepared by W.T. Adeniyi & Co., Licensed Surveyor.

(2) Perpetual injunction to restrain the defendant whether by himself, his servants or agents or otherwise howsoever from further entry on the said land.

Pleadings were filed and exchanged and the trial took place before Oyekan, J. sitting at Ibadan High Court in Oyo State. Five witnesses, including the plaintiff, testified in support of the plaintiff’s claim. The defendant and three other witnesses testified for the defence.

The plaintiff testified at the trial as PW2. His case was that the land in dispute originally belonged to Arulogun, his great-grandfather. Arulogun had four wives; one of them was Onibudo, who begat Jaiyeola and Olabode. Jaiyeola begat Gbadamosi, the plaintiff’s father and Archdeacon Samuel Jaiyeola. Olabode had no issue. The land in dispute formed part of a large parcel of land originally owned by Arulogun. It was the case of the plaintiff that on the death of Arulogun, his landed property was partitioned and that the land in dispute was the portion given to the plaintiff’s father. The plaintiff claimed that he inherited it from his father. The plaintiff told the court in the course of his evidence that the Arulogun’s land was partitioned when Oyagbirin, one of the grand-children of Arulogun, was the head of the Arulogun family. The plaintiff further claimed that the land in dispute was cultivated by Gbadamosi Jaiyeola during his life time. Since his death, the plaintiff took over the land and continued to use the land for farming purposes. The incidents that led to the institution of the present action took place in February, 1984, when the defendant entered the land harvested the plaintiff’s crops thereon. He was warned, but when he failed to heed the warning, the plaintiff had to institute the present action against him. The plaintiff gave a list of his crops on the land which he alleged that the defendant destroyed on the land. They included cocoa trees, kolanut trees, plantain and palm trees.

Zacheus Popoola Arulogun (PW4) who told the court, inter alia, that he was a member of Arulogun family, also confirmed that the land in dispute was the portion of Arulogun’s land given to Gbadamosi, when the land was partitioned. He however said, he did not know when the partition took place and he admitted under cross examination that, the defendant planted crops on the land. But he said that he (defendant) did so forcibly.

The case for the defence was that the defendant was also a descendant of Arulogun, who originally owned the land in dispute.

The said Arulogun had four wives. The first issue of Arulogun was Efunyanju (a female) born by Olayemi, one of the four wives of Arulogun. Efunyanju was the mother of the defendant’s father. Arulogun farmed on his entire landed properties while he was alive. When he died, his children continued to farm on portions of the land. The plaintiff belonged to Gbada Ajala and Oyagbirin line of Arulogun family. They sold the portion of Arulogun’s land being farmed by their line of the Arulogun family to Motor Parts Dealers. The portion now in dispute was the one being farmed by the defendant’s father and on which he continued to farm after the death of his father. The portion of Arulogun’s land now in dispute is said to have been given to Efunyanju by her father, Arulogun, while the man was alive. The grant was known to the other members of the family, including Archdeacon Samuel Jaiyeola (PW.5), the current head of the Arulogun family.

The plaintiff’s claim was said to have been aimed at taking the land in dispute from the defendant, because he is an illiterate farmer, while the plaintiff and PW.4 are well educated people, who did not live in the village like the defendant. The two people were respectively retired teacher and minister of religion, who lived all their working lives in the city. When the dispute started, the matter came before Tiamiyu Eniola Adio (DW3), a very elderly man and the Baale (head chief) of Olodo village of which the land in dispute was a part. The witness told the court that the dispute was reported to him as the head chief of the area. He said he knew the land in dispute and all the parties in the dispute. He also said he was one of the boundarymen of the land in dispute because his farm shared boundary with the land in dispute. He also said he knew all the people that had been fanning on the land. Opadare, the defendant’s father, was farming on the land while he was alive. The defendant continued to farm on it after the death of this father. He confirmed that the land in dispute originally belonged to Arulogun and that Opadare and the defendant were members of Arulogun’s family.

The witness further told the court that when the dispute was reported to him, he summoned a meeting of his chiefs to deliberate on the matter. He said that it was the unanimous decision of himself and all his other chiefs that deliberated on the matter that the land in dispute belonged to Opadare, the defendant’s father, and that the economic crops on the land were planted by Opadare. The plaintiff instituted the present action because he was dissatisfied with the decision handed down by the witness and the chiefs.

Archdeacon Samuel Jaiyeola (PW5) was said to be present when DW3 and his chiefs deliberated over the matter. DW3 said he (PW5) did not accept the decision of the chiefs, because he conspired with the plaintiff to snatch the land from the defendant because the defendant was an illiterate while the plaintiff and PW5 and others on their side were enlightened persons.

The learned trial Judge in his reserved judgment delivered on 30/9/88, found, inter alia, that it was not correct, as claimed by the plaintiff, that Arulogun’s land was partitioned and that the defendant was in fact the person farming on the land in dispute since the death of his father, Opadare. He accordingly held that the plaintiff failed to prove his claim. The action was therefore dismissed with N3,500 costs in favour of the defendant.

The plaintiff was dissatisfied with the verdict of the court. He has therefore appealed to this court against it. Three original grounds of appeal were filed against the decision. With leave of this court, 8 additional grounds were added to the three original grounds of appeal.