ABIODUN ADELAJA VS OLATUNDE FANOIKI & ANOR. - Legalpedia | The Complete Lawyer - Research | Productivity | Health

ABIODUN ADELAJA VS OLATUNDE FANOIKI & ANOR.

CHIEF ALHAJI K. O. S. ARE VS RAJI IPAYE
July 16, 2025
CHIEF R. A. OKOYA & ORS VS S. ANTILLI & ORS
July 16, 2025
CHIEF ALHAJI K. O. S. ARE VS RAJI IPAYE
July 16, 2025
CHIEF R. A. OKOYA & ORS VS S. ANTILLI & ORS
July 16, 2025
Show all

ABIODUN ADELAJA VS OLATUNDE FANOIKI & ANOR.

Legalpedia Citation: (1990-03) Legalpedia 47212 (SC)

In the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Holden at Lagos

Fri Mar 23, 1990

Suit Number: SC 166/1986

CORAM


GEORGE ADESOLA OGUNTADE, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT

M.L. UWAIS – JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

A.G. KARIBI-WHYTE – JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

A.O. OBASEKI – JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

E. OKAFOR – JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

A. NNAMANI, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT

M.L. UWAIS, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT

A.G. KARIBI-WHYTE, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT

S. KAWU, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT

A.G.O. AGBAJE, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT


PARTIES


ABIODUN ADELAJA

APPELLANTS 


OLATUNDE FANOIKI & ANOR

RESPONDENTS 


AREA(S) OF LAW


DECLARATION OF TITLE TO LAND – EVIDENCE -PROOF OF DUE EXECUTION-SECTION 18 AND 31 OF THE REGISTRATION OF TITLES LAW

 

 


SUMMARY OF FACTS

The land in dispute was sold to the appellant in 1958 by a conveyance which was registered. The land was subsequently sold to the 1st appellant in 1972 by the other respondents who denied the conveyance to the appellant.

 

 


HELD


The court held that the conveyance to the appellant was duly executed and that the respondents did not show that it was a forgery and therefore the appellant is entitled to declaration of title and injunction sought.

 

 


ISSUES


“(i)  Did Exhibit A that is deed of Conveyance dated 16th June, 1958 and registered as 19/19/254, Ibadan pass any property of 2nd Respondent family that is Alade Family to Victor Oludemi represented by the appellant?

(ii) Was the Appellant entitled to the presumption arising from Sec. 122 of the Evidence Act?

(iii) Was Sec. 129 of the Evidence Act properly interpreted by the Court of Appeal as contemplated by the section?”

(iv) Whether the Plaintiff/Appellant is not entitled to judgment as claimed against the 2nd Respondent against who there was an order for non-suit, and against the 1st Respondent in respect of who Plaintiff’s claim was dismissed.”

 

 


RATIONES DECIDENDI


WHERE TWO PARTIES OBTAIN TITLE FROM SAME GRANTOR


‘Where both parties claim and succeed in tracing their title in respect of the same piece of land to the same grantor, the principle has long been established that the later in time of the two or more persons to obtain a grant cannot maintain an action against the person who first obtained a grant’. Per Karibi- Whyte  J.S.C

 

 


PROOF OF EXISTENCE OF A DOCUMENT


‘where the complaint is that no such document exists, the proof of the existence of the document will be conclusive as to its validity, except where the person challenging the existence of the document is able to show further that the document so proved to exist is a forgery’. Per Karibi- Whyte  J.S.C

 

 


PROOF OF DUE EXECUTION OF A DEED OF CONVEYANCE


Where a certified true copy of a registered Deed of Conveyance is properly received in evidence, this will be sufficient for the proof of due execution of such Deed of Conveyance’. Per Karibi- Whyte  J.S.C

 

 


CASES CITED


Coker v. Animashawun (1960) L.L.R. 71

Oluwa (1925) 6 NLR 87

Aiyedun T. Jules v. Raimi Ajani (1980) 5-7 S.C. 96

Ikoku v. Oli (1962)1 All NLR (Vol. 1 ) Pt. 1, 194

Cardoso v. Daniel (1966)1 All NLR 25.

 

 


STATUTES REFERRED TO


The Registration of titles law

The Evidence Act

 

 


CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT

Comments are closed.