SUNDAY MODUPE VS THE STATE
July 17, 2025ANANABA OHUKA VS THE STATE PA
July 17, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (1988-07) Legalpedia 80799 (SC)
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Holden At Lagos
Fri Jul 22, 1988
Suit Number: SC 160/1985
CORAM
OBASEKI, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT
KAWU, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT
OPUTA, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT
AGBAJE, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT
WALI, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT
PARTIES
E. O. FASORO AND ANOTHER
APPELLANTS
OLALERE BEYIOKU AND OTHERS
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
LAND LAW – DECLARATION OF TITLE – INJUNCTON – PROOF OF OWNERSHIP
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The Appellants/Plaintiffs in the Court of first instance sued the Defendants/Respondents for Declaration of title, damages for Trespass and injunction on a piece or parcel of land. The Plaintiffs won in the Court of first instance and the Defendants lost.
HELD
That where there are conflicting claims to ownership and possession as in this case, effective and exclusive possession needed to establish trespass cannot be ascribed to the plaintiffs who failed to show better title.
ISSUES
Did the Plaintiffs succeed in proving a valid transfer of the land in dispute from the Olayalo family (in whom, as they pleaded, the radical title resides), to them?
RATIONES DECIDENDI
EFFECT OF FAILURE TO PROVE TITLE IN AN ACTION FOR DECLARATION OF TITLE
‘When a Plaintiff pleads Sale and Conveyance as his root of title, he either succeeds in proving the Sale or Conveyance or he fails. Where he succeeds, he wins and where he fails his case ought to be dismissed. ‘Per. C.A. OPUTA, JSC.
PRESUMPTION OF POSSESSION.
‘That once radical title has been pleaded and proved, acts of ownership or possession resulting from such title, need no longer be considered for they are then non issues.’ Per. C.A. OPUTA, JSC.
EFFECT OF FAILURE TO PROVE TITLE IN AN ACTION FOR DECLARATION OF TITLE
‘Where both parties claimed ownership of the land in dispute, and both also claimed various acts of ownership and possession in and over the land. When such is the case, the law is that he who can prove title is in actual possession and the other is a trespasser.’ Per. C.A. OPUTA, JSC
CASES CITED
Akerele v. Atunrase (1969) 1 All NLR 201.
Chief Oyelakin Balogun AND OTHERS v. Oladosu Akanji AND anor. S.C. 94/1986 delivered on 12th February, 1988 [(1988) 1 NWLR. (Pt. 70) 301]:-
Da Costa v. ikomi (1968) 1 All NLR. 394 at p.398:
Ogbechie AND OTHERS v. Onochie AND OTHERS S.C. 193/1985 delivered on 19th February, 1988 [(1988) 1 NWLR (Pt. 70) 370].
Ekpo v. Ita 11 NLR 68.
STATUTES REFERRED TO
Evidence Act Cap 62 of 1958,
