ABUDU LASISI & ANOR V. OLADAPO TUBI & ANOR
August 9, 2025MURMANSK STATE STEAMSHIP LINE VS THE KANO OIL MILLERS LIMITED
August 9, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (1974-12) Legalpedia (SC) 21226
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Wed Dec 18, 1974
Suit Number: SC. 325/1973
CORAM
ELIAS JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
IBEKWE JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
IRIKEFE JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
PARTIES
ALHADJA SABALEMOTU A. KAIYAOJA
MADAM A. A. KAIYAOJA
MADAM A. AGIRI KAIYAOJA
SADU SALU KAIYAOJA
LATIFU A. KAIYAOJA
APPELLANTS
LASISI EGUNLA
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
LAND LAW – PROOF OF TITLE TO LAND -LACHES AND ACQUIESCENSE
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The appellant consistently placed notices on the land warning against trespass and the activities of one Odogbo. The respondent predicated his title on someone who purchased the land from Dogbo and put up the defence of laches and acquiescence.
HELD
The court held that the appellant sufficiently proved title to the land and that the defence of laches and acquiescence did not avail the respondent from the circumstances of the case.
ISSUES
1. Whether the appellant sufficiently proved title to the land in dispute< br/>
2. whether the defence of laches and acquiescence availed the respondent.
RATIONES DECIDENDI
STANDARD OF PROOF IN A CLAIM FOR DECLARATION OF TITLE
The standard of proof in a claim for declaration of title is not different from that which is required in civil cases generally. Per Ibekwe J.S.C
DEFENCE OF LACHES
In our view, in order for the defence of “laches” to operate, such lapse of time must be coupled with the existence of circumstances which make it inequitable to enforce the claim. Per Ibekwe J.S.C
CASES CITED
1. Akpan Awo v. Cookey Gam, 2 N.L.R. 100
2. Lindsay Petroleum Co. v. Hurd (1874) L.R. 5 P.C. 221 at 239
STATUTES REFERRED TO
Not Available
