CORAM

---

SALIHU MODIBBO ALFA BELGORE, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

EMMANUEL OBIOMA OGWUEGBU JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

DAHIRU MUSDAPHER JUSTICE SUPREME COURT

---

PARTIES

---

1. MRS. GLADYS MAJEKODUNMI2. MRS. ELIZABETH ABIOLA ORIOYE3. BOLAJI AKANJI SANYAOLU4. OLUWEMIMO ADEBOWALE SANYAOLU5. ADEBAYO ADEBOWALE SANYAOLU6. ADEBOLA SANYAOLU APPELLANTS

---

RESPONDENTS

---

AREA(S) OF LAW

---

---

SUMMARY OF FACTS

Both parties claimed right to first registration with respect to the land in dispute. While the respondent traced his title to the original owners of the land, the appellant sought to rely on adverse possession.

---

HELD

---

The court dismissed the appeal and held that the respondent has the right to first registration.

---

ISSUES

---

1. Whether the respondent was entitled to be registered upon his application as the first registered owner of No. 66 Karimu Street, Surulere, Lagos having regard to the evidence?2. Whether the appellants were not entitled to be registered as the first registered owners of Nos. 66 and/or 68 Karimu Street, Surulere, Lagos upon the evidence?3.  Whether the lower court properly considered the point of law raised by the appellants as to whether they qualify as adverse possessors of the land in dispute arising under section 21 of the Limitation Law of Lagos State, or, in equity, and if so, whether such interest qualifies them under section 6 of the Registration of Titles Law to defeat the respondent’s application and ground their own application?4.  Whether the lower court was not wrong in its assessment of the manner of the appellants’ attack on the judgment of the High Court

---

RATIONES DECIDENDI

---

ADVERSE POSSESSION – ONUS ON CLAIMANT TO PROVE

---

It is not enough that a claimant is able to show that he has been in possession of land for the requisite number of years. The burden on him is higher than that. He has to show something more. He is the one claiming that land owned by the title holder has now become his. It has become his because the owner has either been dispossessed or has discontinued his possession. Therefore the claimant has the clear onus to prove that the title holder has been dispossessed, or has discontinued his possession- Uwaifo J.S.C

---

REGISTRATION OF DEFECTIVE TITLE

---

It is improper to accept first registration of title that is obviously defective since once registered it is indefeasible unless under very restricted conditions for rectification – Uwaifo J.S.C.

---

CASES CITED

---

Onagoruwa v. Akinremi (2001) 13 NWLR (pt. 729) 38; (2001) 8 SCM 83 Sosan v. Ademuyiwa (1986) 3 NWLR (pt. 27) 241Worton v. London and North Western Railway Co. (1879-80) 13 Ch. D. 268 at 273Wallis’s Ltd. v. Shell-Mex and BP (1974) 3 All ER 575 at 580Wuta Ofei v. Danquah (1961) 3 All ER 596; Alatishe v. Sanyaolu (1972) 2 SC 97; Ajero v. Ugorji (1999) 10 NWLR (pt. 621). 1

---

STATUTES REFERRED TO

---

The Limitation Law of Lagos State, The Registration of Titles Law?

---

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT