REMILEKUN OLAIYA V. MRS. CORNELIA T. OLAIYA
June 18, 2025JULIUS OBA FATOYINBO VS MICHAEL DADA OSADEYI
June 18, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (2002) Legalpedia (SC) 19151
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Fri May 10, 2002
Suit Number: SC.139/1997
CORAM
SALIHU MODIBBO ALFA BELGORE, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
AKINTOLA OLUFEMI EJIWUNM, IJUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
PARTIES
1. ALHAJI ADEBIYI LAYINKA2. MR. ADENIHUN LAYINKA(For themselves and on behalf of LAYINKA FAMILY) APPELLANTS
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
This appeal is in respect of the decision of Court of Appeal Ibadan Branch. ?
HELD
The Appeal was dismissed. ?
ISSUES
(1) Whether the lower court made proper use of Exhibits E, F, G, H, J, K, L, M, R, BE, U.1 and U2 along with the oral evidence of the appellants in resolving the issue of acts of possession and ownership as between the plaintiffs and the defendants, before resolving the same in favour of the defendants/respondents.(2) Whether the learned justices of the lower court were right while considering the acts of possession of the appellants in the use they made of Exhibits E, F, G, H to the effect that (1) Layinka was not adjudged as owners of the land but a caretaker (2) He was a trespasser (3) the boundary of the land allotted to him was not ascertained.(3) Whether the lower court was right in holding that the trial court gave proper consideration to Exhibit “R” i.e. D.O’s report of 1933 when in fact the trial court considered only paragraph 4 out of the 19 paragraphs of the report.(4) Whether the lower court was right in holding that the appellants were claiming special damages against the defendant which has not been proved.(5) Whether the lower court was right in holding that the trial court exercised his discretion judiciously and judicially in awarding a heavy cost of N14,000.00 against the appellants in a simple land matter.?
RATIONES DECIDENDI
ATTITUDE OF APPELLATE COURT TO CONCURRENT FINDINGS OF FACT BY LOWER COURTS
No appellate court should disturb the concurrent findings like these unless those findings are perverse or are based on wrong proposition of law or inadmissible evidence or no evidence at all. Per S.M.A. BELGORE, JSC.
ONUS ON PLAINTIFF TO PROVE THE VALIDITY OF HIS TITLE
It is always the plaintiff who asserts that carries the onus of proving his assertion. The test is to find, in failure of traditional history to shed proper light on the true owner, who in recent times has exercised exclusive acts of ownership on the land in question over a reasonable length of time in a positive and unhidden manner numerous enough to exclude any other inference than that that person is the owner. Per S.M.A. BELGORE, JSC.
CASES CITED
Kojo II Vs Bonsie (1957) 1 WLR 1223, 1226Eriri v. Erhunlobara (1991) 2 NWLR (Pt. 173) 253, 263Abudu Fajube Karimu v. Daniel (1968) NMLR 151, 153Oloriode vs Oyebi (1984) 5SC1, 17, 18
STATUTES REFERRED TO
