ISHOLA KARIMU VS THE STATE
July 17, 2025OBIKOYA V WEMA BANK LIMITED
July 17, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (1989-01) Legalpedia 35716 (SC)
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Holden At Lagos
Fri Jan 20, 1989
Suit Number: SC 18/1987
CORAM
OBASEKI, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT
UWAIS, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT
OPUTA, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT
WALI, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT
CRAIG, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT
PARTIES
GILBERT ONWUKA & ORS
APPELLANTS
MICHAEL EDIALA & ORS
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
LAND LAW – CUSTOMARY TENANCY UNDER THE LAND USE ACT – PROOF OF IDENTITY OF LAND- CONCURRENT FINDINGS OF FACT
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The appellants were customary tenants of the respondents who started to claim title to the adjoining lands over which the customary tenancy did not extend. The two lower courts found that the respondents proved title to the land.
HELD
justified by the evidence led at trial.
ISSUES
1. The respondents’ plan Exhibit ‘A’ having not shown any demarcation between the defendants’ buildings and adjoining premises, and the rest of the land in dispute, was the learned trial Judge right in granting a declaration of title and an injunction in such an imprecise situation considering the decision in the case of Atekwadzo v. Robert Adjei 10 W.A.C.A. 274 and the more recent Supreme Court’s decision in Elias v. Omo-Bare (1982) 5 S.C. at 39, and if not, were the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal not in error by completely overlooking that issue?
2. Were the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal not in error when they failed to reconsider the question of law raised under section 45 of the Evidence Act, and section 36(4) of the Land Use Act, all of which were put before the Justices by appellants’ counsel both in the grounds of appeal, and the address, considering the evidence before the court.
3. Did the pleading and evidence of Traditional History as presented by the respondents before the High Court meet the required standard as enunciated in the case of Kalio v. Woluchem (1985) 1 N.W.L.R. 610 to warrant the learned Justices to sustain the trial Court’s conclusion on that issue?
4. Is the finding that the Egbema pipe-line and a survey beacon were acts of ownership on the land in dispute by the respondents not perverse considering that the plan exhibit ‘A’ filed by the respondents did not feature any of those acts in the land in dispute? Can a decision substantially rested on this finding be sustained?
5. Were the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal not in error when they failed to re-evaluate the evidence before the court considering that the learned trial Judge did not follow the principles as stated in the case of Odofin v. Mogaii (1978) 4 S.C. 91?
6. Can Exhibits C and D, the so called arbitration judgments properly treated as binding on the parties considering that exhibit D was rejected by both parties, and exhibit C was not signed by either of the parties?”
RATIONES DECIDENDI
PROOF OF IDENTITY OF LAND
In an action for a declaration of title to a piece of land the person claiming must prove the boundaries of the land he claims with definitive certainty such that a surveyor, taking the record, could produce a plan showing with accuracy, the land in dispute- Wali J.S.C.
THE STATUS OF CUSTOMARY TENANCY UNDER THE LAND USE ACT
Section 36(1) of the Land Use Act does not enlarge the right of a customary tenant to any piece of land in non-urban area which was, at the commencement of the Act in his possession and occupation. A customary tenant remains so and is subject to the conditions attached to the customary tenancy – Wali J.S.C.
WHEN THE COURT WILL INTERFERE WITH CONCURRENT FINDINGS OF FACT
Where there are concurrent finding of facts by the lower courts, this Court is always reluctant to interfere with such findings unless they are found to be erroneous or perverse – Wali J.S.C.
CASES CITED
KWADZO V. ADJEI 10 W.A.C.A.. 274;
EZEOKEKE AND ORS. V. VEJA AND ORS. (1962) 1 All N.L.R. 482;
AMATA V. MODUKWE 14 W.A.C.A. 580;
OKOSUN EPI V. JOHNNY AIGHEDION (1972) 10 S.C. 532;
ONOTAIRE AND ORS. V. ONOKPASA v ORS. (1984) 12 S.C. 19.
LUCY ONOWAN & ANOR. V. ISERHIEN IN RE LUCY ONOWAN (1976) 9-10 S.C. 95;
OKOLO V. UZOKA (1978) 5 S.C. 86
FASHANU V. ADEKOYA (1974) 1 All N.L.R. (Pt.1) 35.
STATUTES REFERRED TO
The Land Use Act
