CORAM
ADEMOLA CHIEF JUSTICE, NIGERIA
BREET JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
MADARIKAN JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
PARTIES
JIMOH AILERU AND OTHERS
APPELLANTS
ADEMUOYE (DECD.) substituted by MUYIBATU ADEMUOYE AND OTHERS
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
LAND LAW – LAW OF EQUITY-ACQUIESCENCE
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The appellants knowingly stood by while the respondent developed the land in dispute which the respondent bought from persons who had no authority to sell the land. They subsequently claimed for title, trespass, injunction and possession. The respondent did not counter-claim.
HELD
The court held that the respondent had acquired equity in the land and adjourned proceedings for the appellants to offer the defendant compensation for the expense he has incurred or for the respondent to counter-claim for a conveyance and pay for the land.
ISSUES
1 Whether the lower court was right in granting the appellants title but refusing their claim for trespass, possession and injunction.
2 Whether the lower court was right to have granted the appellants title after finding that they acquiesced to the respondent’s possession.
RATIONES DECIDENDI
COURT’S ROLE WHILE CONSIDERING APPLICATIONS FOR DECLARATION OF TITLE
1. ‘The grant of a declaration of title is a matter for the court’s discretion, and that it should certainly not be made as a matter of course.’ Per Brett J.S.C
COURT’S ROLE WHILE CONSIDERING APPLICATIONS FOR DECLARATION OF TITLE.
2. ‘In exercising a discretionary power in such a case as this the court should try to make an order that will settle the rights of the parties finally.’ Per Brett J.S.C
CASES CITED
1. Plimmer v. The Mayor of Wellington (1884) 9 App, Cas. 699, at pp. 713-714
2. Ramsden v. Dyson (1866) L.R. 1 H.L. 129
3. Duke of Beaufort v. Patrick 17 Beav. 60
4. Duke of Beaufort v. Patrick 17 Beav. 60, 51 E. R. 954
5. Oluwo v. Adebowale (1964) N.M.L.R. 17
STATUTES REFERRED TO