ABOLAJI ADEYEMI & ANOR V. AMOS AYOOLA OSINLOYE & ANOR

Legalpedia Citation: (2025-07) Legalpedia 47029 (CA)

In the Court of Appeal

Holden at Ibadan

Wed Jul 9, 2025

Suit Number: CA/IB/317/2022

CORAM

Biobele Abraham Georgewill Justice of the Court of Appeal

Binta Fatima Zubairu Justice of the Court of Appeal

Fadawu Umaru Justice of the Court of Appeal

PARTIES

1. ABOLAJI ADEYEMI
2. TAIWO OKE

APPELLANTS

1. AMOS AYOOLA OSINLOYE
2. FEMI OSINLOYE

For themselves and on behalf of members of Efuntadebo Amiwo-Osinloye Family.

RESPONDENTS

AREA(S) OF LAW

LAND LAW, CIVIL PROCEDURE, JURISDICTION, FAMILY LAW, EVIDENCE LAW, TRADITIONAL EVIDENCE, TITLE TO LAND, DAMAGES, TRESPASS, LOCUS STANDI, REPRESENTATIVE ACTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Respondents, Amos Ayoola Osinloye and Femi Osinloye, sued for themselves and on behalf of the Efuntadebo-Amiwo-Osinloye family, claiming ownership of 21.00 acres of farmland situated at Lakaye Imaridan village, along Ajebo/Simawa Road, Sagamu, Ogun State. The land was described in survey plan No. 09/677/2003/048. The Respondents claimed title through traditional evidence, tracing their ownership through their ancestor Efuntadebo, daughter of Odufowobi, who inherited the land from their forebears.

The Appellants, Abolaji Adeyemi and Taiwo Oke, challenged the Respondents’ claim, arguing that the family lacked legal capacity to sue as they were non-juristic persons. The Appellants also contended that being sued “severally and personally” was unknown to law. Additionally, they challenged the Respondents’ traditional evidence as contradictory and insufficient to establish title, arguing that the genealogical history was incoherent and failed to properly trace the chain of title from the original founder to the present claimants.

The trial court at Ogun State High Court, Sagamu Judicial Division, delivered judgment on April 28, 2022, in favor of the Respondents, granting all reliefs sought including declaration of title, damages for trespass in the sum of N1,000,000, perpetual injunction, and possession of the land. The court found that the Respondents had established their traditional root of title and that the 1st Appellant had engaged in unauthorized dealings with the land, including attempting to sell portions of it.

HELD

1. The appeal was dismissed in its entirety and the trial court judgment was affirmed.
2. The Court held that the suit was properly constituted as the Respondents sued in their personal capacities and in representative capacity on behalf of their family, conferring jurisdiction on the court.
3. The Court found that families or non-juristic entities may sue through named individuals representing them, and that natural persons possess full legal capacity to sue and be sued.
4. The Court held that the Respondents had discharged the burden of proof by establishing credible traditional evidence of their root of title, supported by acts of possession and corroborated by the Appellants’ own admissions.
5. The Court upheld the award of N1,000,000 as general damages for trespass, finding that trespass to land is actionable per se and that general damages need not be specifically pleaded.
6. No order as to costs was made on the appeal.

ISSUES

1. Whether the Respondents’ action as constituted was competent for the trial court to assume jurisdiction?
2. Whether the trial court was right in law and on the facts in giving judgment in favour of the Claimants now the Respondents who had failed to discharge the burden of proof placed on them by law?
3. Whether the award of costs of One Million (N1,000,000) Naira as damages for trespass was in judicial and judicious exercise of the trial court based on proper procedures and correct principles as to justify the award by the trial court?

RATIONES DECIDENDI

JURISDICTION – FUNDAMENTAL TO JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS

The issue of jurisdiction has been held to be the lifeblood of any adjudication. It is so fundamental that it must be resolved before any other step is taken in the proceedings. It goes to the competence of the Court or Tribunal to entertain a cause or matter. – Per FADAWU UMARU, JCA

JURISDICTIONAL DEFECT – NULLITY OF PROCEEDINGS

If a Court has no jurisdiction to hear and determine a case, the proceeding remains a nullity, no matter how well conducted and decided, and is liable to be set aside. A defect in competence is not only intrinsic but also extrinsic to the entire process of adjudication. – Per FADAWU UMARU, JCA

FAMILY REPRESENTATION – JURISTIC CAPACITY FOR NON-JURISTIC ENTITIES

In my opinion, the word ‘family’ is not notional; it is an association of people, a class of persons, who descended from a common ancestor. Therefore, although not a natural legal entity per se, the word ‘family’ is a conglomerate of natural persons who are of themselves individual natural legal entities. – Per FADAWU UMARU, JCA

FAMILY MEMBERS – RIGHT TO SUE IN REPRESENTATIVE CAPACITY

It is therefore not farfetched to say that these class of persons called ‘family’ can choose to come together and be represented in a suit. Hence, there is no rule of law or practice which forbids some of the persons of the same descent or family who are interested in a common subject-matter from suing or being sued in respect of same. – Per FADAWU UMARU, JCA

FAMILY PROPERTY PROTECTION – RIGHT TO SUE COLLECTIVELY

Therefore, the law is now rock solid and it is the position of the Courts at all tiers that a person or group of persons has or have the unbridled right to protect his or their family property and can sue by himself or together in a representative capacity. – Per FADAWU UMARU, JCA

REPRESENTATIVE CAPACITY – PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE OF AUTHORITY

That once the plaintiff has expressed on a Writ or Statement of Claim that the action was brought in a representative capacity, as in the instant case, it is ‘prima facie’ evidence of authority to sue in that capacity.– Per FADAWU UMARU, JCA

PROOF OF TITLE – FIVE METHODS OF ESTABLISHING OWNERSHIP

It is now settled law that a party may prove title to a piece of land in any of the following five ways:- a) By traditional evidence. b) By documents of title. c) By various acts of ownership, numerous and positive, and extending over a length of time as to warrant the reference of ownership. d) By acts of long enjoyment and possession of the land. e) By proof of possession of adjacent and in circumstances which render it probable that he is the owner of the disputed land. – Per FADAWU UMARU, JCA

TRADITIONAL EVIDENCE REQUIREMENTS – ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS FOR PROOF

Where a party relies on traditional evidence, such party must plead and lead credible evidence establishing the following facts:- (a) Relating to the founding of land in dispute; (b) The person or persons who founded the land and exercised original acts of possession; (c) The persons on whom the title in respect of the land was devolved since its first founding, without any break or gap in the claim of devolution to the present owners. – Per FADAWU UMARU, JCA

COMPETING TRADITIONAL CLAIMS – STANDARD FOR EVALUATION

Where both sides to the dispute claim ownership to the land based on traditional or ancestral history, it is the party that advances better evidence of traditional history or ownership that will be entitled to the judgment of the Court. – Per FADAWU UMARU, JCA

UNCHALLENGED TRADITIONAL EVIDENCE – ENTITLEMENT TO JUDGMENT

The law is clear that where the evidence of traditional history is unchallenged or corroborated by the opponent’s own case, a claimant is entitled to judgment. – Per FADAWU UMARU, JCA

TRESPASS TO LAND – ACTIONABLE PER SE

It is settled law that trespass to land is actionable per se, that is, without proof of actual damage, and that nominal or general damages may be awarded upon a finding that the claimant is in possession or entitled to possession, and that the defendant interfered with that possession.– Per FADAWU UMARU, JCA

ENERAL DAMAGES – NO REQUIREMENT FOR SPECIFIC PLEADING

Unlike special damages, general damages do not have to be particularly pleaded and proved by a Claimant; rather, it is awarded as part of the natural consequences of the Tortfeasor’s actions. – Per FADAWU UMARU, JCA

TRESPASS LIABILITY – AUTOMATIC PRESUMPTION FROM OWNERSHIP

It is a settled principle of law that once ownership or possession is established in the plaintiff, any interference by the defendant raises an automatic presumption of trespass. – Per FADAWU UMARU, JCA

CASES CITED

STATUTES REFERRED TO

1. High Court Rules
2. Evidence Act
3. Land Use Act

OTHER CITATIONS

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT

COUNSEL

1. SULYMAN OLAIYA GIWA, Esq.For Appellant(s)
2. ABIODUN LEKAN, Esq.For Respondent(s)