ADESINA OKE AND ORS VS SHITTU ATOLOYE AND ORS

CORAM

ANIAGOLU, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT

NNAMANI, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT

KAZEEM, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT

KAWU, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT

OPUTA, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT

PARTIES

ADESINA OKE AND ORS

APPELLANTS

SHITTU ATOLOYE AND ORS

RESPONDENTS

AREA(S) OF LAW

DECLARATION OF TITLE TO LAND

SUMMARY OF FACTS

In this appeal, the Appellants /Plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and Wonpori family sued the Defendant personally for a declaration of title under Yoruba Customary Law as owners of all that piece and parcel of land, for damages for trespass and for an injunction to restrain the Defendant from committing or continuing to commit acts of trespass on the said land. The land in dispute in this appeal formed the Southern portion of the entire parcel of land which formed the subject-matter of the proceedings which was between one Josiah Sobanjo behalf of the Simitara family as Plaintiffs and the present Appellants as Defendants. The claims for damages, trespass and injunction failed. The Plaintiff appealed against the judgment of the high court to the Court of Appeal in which the court of appeal also dismissed the appeal. Still dissatisfied with that judgment, the appellant appealed to the Supreme Court.

HELD

The appeal succeeded and was allowed.

ISSUES

The Federal Court of Appeal erred in law in going behind the judgment in the West African Court of Appeal in Suit 1/144/50 (WACA. 233/53 to the effect that the present Appellants had been in possession of the land in dispute for 10 years before the action was filed (i. e. 1950) thereby re-opening the issue of possession of the land in dispute already conclude as a result of which the Court reversed the onus of proof which was settled on the basis of Section 145 of the Evidence Act.

The Federal Court of Appeal erred in law in holding that the Respondents were not bound by the decision in 1/144/50 (as confirmed on appeal to the West African Court of Appeal in WA CA. 233/53) when the Respondents claimed in the High Court through an ancestor whose estate was not put in issue in the 1950 suit and were accordingly bound by the decision.