CORAM

---

NNAMANI JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

KARIBI-WHYTE JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

WALTER SAMUEL NKANU ONNOGHEN, JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL

AGBAJE JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

WALI JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

---

PARTIES

---

CHIEF ADEBAYO BASHORUN OLUFOSOYE

ABUDU AKINTUJOYE

OYEGUNADE ADETOKUNBOH (For themselves and on behalf of Loduti and Ajaka Family)

APPELLANTS 

---

JOHNSON O. OLORUNFEMI

RESPONDENTS 

---

AREA(S) OF LAW

---

DECLARATION OF TITLE TO LAND -IDENTITY OF LAND/ NON- SUIT.

 

---

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The parties laid claim to the land in dispute on the basis of traditional evidence and acts of possession. The trial court failed to make any findings on the traditional history of the Plaintiffs and on their acts of ownership and possession but dismissed their claim on the basis of lack of proper identification of the land.

 

---

HELD

---

The court held that the plaintiffs ought to have been non- suited

 

---

ISSUES

---

1.  Whether the Plaintiffs or the Defendant or his predecessor in title sold land or granted leases as claimed in paragraph 14 of the Amended Statement of Claim and contradicted in paragraphs 14 and 15 of the Amended Statement of Defence.

2. Whether or not Loduti and Ajaka family established its radical title as based on traditional evidence;

3. Whether or not Loduti and Ajaka family established ownership of the land in dispute by the exercise of acts tantamount to ownership like selling and leasing parts of the land in dispute as pleaded in paragraph 14 of the Amended Statement of Claim;

4. Whether or not the Defendants has been trespassing on the land in dispute by leasing and selling parts of the land to strangers as claimed in paragraph 15 of the Amended Statement of Claim .

5.  What effect exhibits “F” and “G” have on the plaintiffs’ claim in relation to the land in dispute or part thereof;

6.  Whether or not the plaintiffs proved possession in relation to the land in dispute and were therefore entitled to sue for trespass

7.  Whether or not Exhibits “D” “E” and “H” established the radical title claimed by the Defendant in view of the defects in them

 

---

RATIONES DECIDENDI

---

WHEN AN ORDER OF NON- SUIT SHOULD BE MADE

---

A non suit is a termination of an action which did not adjudicate all relevant issues on the merit, as where a plaintiff was unable to prove his whole case and it will be unjust to dismiss such case in its entirety or where there was a failure by the trial judge to make proper and specific findings and an appellate court can neither do the same on the printed evidence, there a rehearing or a non suit depending on the circumstances of the particular case, may be ordered – Oputa J.S.C.

 

---

DUTY OF PLAINTIFF TO PROVE CLEARLY THE AREA OF LAND CLAIMED

---

The first duty of any plaintiff claiming from the court a declaration of title to land is to show clearly the area of land to which his claim relates: – Oputa J.S.C

 

---

CASES CITED

---

Elemeny Ikoro v. /Safrap (Nig.) Ltd. (1977) 2 SC. 123 at p.127;

Craig v. Craig (1966) 1 All N.L.R. 173 at p.177, (1967) N.M.L.R. 52 at p.55;

Aigbe v. Edokpolor (1977)2 SC. 1 at p. 17;

Omorege v. Lawani (1980) 3-4 SC. 108 at p. 116

Awote v. Cheif Owodunni (No.2)(1987)2 N.W.L.R.366 at p.375

Akinola Baruwa v. Ogunshola (1939) 4 W.A.C.A. 195

 

---

STATUTES REFERRED TO

---

Not Available

 

---

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT