CHIEF OMONIYI FAYEHUN & ORS VS CHIEF R.A. FADOJU & ORS
June 26, 2025CHIEF OMONIYI FAYEHUN & ORS VS CHIEF R.A. FADOJU & ORS
June 26, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (2000) Legalpedia (SC) 12101
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Fri Apr 7, 2000
Suit Number: SC. 96/1994
CORAM
KARIBI-WHYTE JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
OGUNDARE JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
IGANATIUS CHUKWUDI PATS ACHOLONU, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
IGUH JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
UWAIFO JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
PARTIES
1. LAWANI ALLI2. ODUOLA AREMU (for themselves and on behalf of Oroye Family) APPELLANTS
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The plaintiffs, for themselves and on behalf of the Oroye family, instituted an action jointly and severally against the 1st to the 5th defendants as representatives of the Alesinloye family and the 6th to the 9th defendants .
HELD
That the appellants establish the grant from Opeagbe to them
ISSUES
Was the Court below not wrong in law when it held that Exhibit “A” was inadmissible as evidence against the proprietary interest of Ladejo Adeleke and or the Alesinloye family and that the Alesinloye family was not estopped by conduct or by standing by?Whether the court below was right in law when it held that title to the land in dispute was not established by the appellants
RATIONES DECIDENDI
WHERE THERE IS CONFLICT OF TRADITIONAL HISTORY
Where there is a conflict in traditional history, the demeanour of witnesses is of little guide to the truth of the matter as it must recognised that in the course of transmission from generation of the traditional history, mistakes may occur with any dishonest motives whatsoever. In such a case, the traditional history is to be tested by recent facts established by evidence with a view to determining which of the conflicting versions is more probable. Per Anthony Ikechukwu Iguh, JSC
THE EFFECT OF ADMISSIBILITY OF THE TRADITIONAL EVIDENCE
Where the evidence of tradition history is found to be cogent and accepted by the court, can support a claim for declaration of title to land Per Anthony Ikechukwu Iguh, JSC
HOW TO PLEAD TRADITIONAL EVIDENCE
The law is equally well settled that it is not sufficient for a party who relies for proof of title to land on traditional evidence, as in the present case, to merely prove that he or his predecessor in title had owned and possessed the land from time immemorial. Such a party is bound to plead such facts as
(1) Who founded the land
(2) How the land was founded and
(3) particulars of the intervening owners through whom he claims.-Per Anthony Ikechukwu Iguh, JSC
CASES CITED
1. Kojo II v. Bonsie (1957) 1 W.L.R.1223 at 12272. Mogaji and others v. Cadbury Fry (export) Ltd. (1985) 2 N.W.L.R. (Part 7) 3933. Idundun & Ors. Okumagba (1976) 9 &10 S.C. 277 at 246-2504. Akinloye v. Eyiyiola (1968)N.M.L.R.92
STATUTES REFERRED TO
NONE
