Legalpedia Citation: (2025-03) Legalpedia 36165 (CA)
In the Court of Appeal
IBADAN JUDICIAL DIVISION
Wed Mar 26, 2025
Suit Number: CA/IB/227/2020
CORAM
Gabriel omoniyi kolawole JCA
Binta fatima zubairu JCA
Uwabunkeonye onwosi JCA
PARTIES
1. MRS. ESTHER EZULUIKE
2. CHINEDU EZULUIKE (For themselves and on behalf of Ezuluike Family of 39, Becroft Street, Obanlande, Lagos State)
3. KOLA OSHOKO
APPELLANTS
1. FOLUSO OLUDAYO SANYAOLU
2. ABIODUN OLAWOLU SANYAOLU … (For themselves and on behalf of Adetayo Sanyaolu of Itoki, Village)
3. CAPTAIN AYODELE SASEGBON (For and on behalf of the Estate of Dr. A. O. Oyejola)RESPONDENT(S)
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, HUMAN RIGHTS, ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, LAND LAW, PROPERTY LAW, EVIDENCE, CUSTOMARY LAW, APPEAL, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE, EQUITY, LACHES AND ACQUIESCENCE
SUMMARY OF FACTS
This case centers on a dispute over land ownership at Itoki Village in Ifo Local Government Area of Ogun State. The Respondents filed an Amended Writ of Summons seeking several declarations, including that the 1st and 2nd Claimants (now Respondents) are entitled to Statutory Right of Occupancy over a parcel of land measuring 10.361 acres, and that the Estate of Late Dr. Ayodeji Oyejola represented by the 3rd Claimant (now 3rd Respondent) is entitled to Statutory Right of Occupancy over a parcel of land measuring 21.349 acres.
The Respondents claimed that Late Mr. Adetayo Sanyaolu (father of the 1st and 2nd Respondents) purchased the 10.361 acres from Late Dr. Ayodeji Oyejola in 1957, which was evidenced by a purchase receipt (Exhibit B1). They further claimed that their father took possession of the land and established farming enterprises on it.
The Appellants, on the other hand, claimed that their late father, Mr. Jonathan Igwemadu Ezuluike, purchased 31.70 acres of the land from the beneficiaries of Late Dr. Ayodeji Oyejola’s estate in 1970, evidenced by a deed dated May 5, 1970. They also claimed their predecessor in title had litigated over the land between 1988 and 2003.
The trial court ruled in favor of the Respondents, declaring the Appellants’ documents of title forged. The Appellants, dissatisfied with the judgment, filed this appeal.
HELD
The appeal lacks merit and was dismissed.
The judgment of the High Court of Justice, Ogun State sitting at Ota and delivered by HON. JUSTICE O. OGUNFOWORA in Suit No: HCT/50/2012, was affirmed.
Parties were to bear their respective costs.
ISSUES
1.Whether or not having regard to exhibit ‘B1’ (Indenture made on the 5th day of October, 1957 from Dr. Ayodeji Oyejola to Adetayo Sanyaolu) there was a valid grant of 10.361 acres of land to the predecessor in title of the 1st and 2nd Claimants to warrant a declaration of title in the favour of the 1st and 2nd Respondents?
2.Whether or not the principle of ademption enures in the face of a defective title document?
3.Whether or not the doctrine of laches and acquiescence are not applicable to the facts of the case presented by parties in the Court below?
RATIONES DECIDENDI
IDENTITY OF LAND – WHEN SURVEY PLAN IS REQUIRED TO PROVE IDENTITY:
“The grouse of the Appellants here is not that ‘Exhibit B1’ did not exist, rather that the plan referred as attached to it was not there. And from the facts of the case, the identity of the land in dispute was never in issue. It is where the identity of the land in dispute is in issue, that the need for prove of same by filing survey plan is necessary. Again, where therefore, the identity of the land is known to all the parties to the dispute, it will not be necessary to have a survey plan of the land or lead evidence as to the identity of the land in dispute.” – Per UWABUNKEONYE ONWOSI, JCA
LAND IDENTITY – DUTY TO PROVE IDENTITY WHEN CHALLENGED:
“But, before a claimant is required to prove the identity of a parcel of land subject of the litigation before a Court of law, it must be an issue which has been raised in the respondent’s statement of defence. Where the issue of the identity of the land in dispute has not been raised in the pleadings of the respondent in the litigation, the claimant has no duty to prove same.” – Per UWABUNKEONYE ONWOSI, JCA
LAND TRANSFER UNDER CUSTOMARY LAW – EFFECT OF WRITTEN DOCUMENT:
“Indeed, under customary law, a transfer of land either by way of sale, grant or other mode of transfer of title can be effected orally. Though a transfer of land under customary law made in writing is not invalid, writing or receipt evidencing such transfer is not a requirement for transfer of interest in land under customary law. The production of written document may strengthen a party’s case, but its absence will not ipso facto be injurious to a party’s claim, where he can prove his claim by oral evidence.” – Per UWABUNKEONYE ONWOSI, JCA
PROOF OF PURCHASE – EVIDENTIAL VALUE OF PURCHASE RECEIPT:
“It is trite law that a purchase of land can be proved by a purchase receipt or by an agreement of sale, or by any fact that shows such a transaction did take place. See Adepate Vs. Babatunde (2002) 4 NWLR pt.756 pg. 99. A purchase receipt is evidence that there was an agreement for sale of Land, and that the consideration for sale was paid by the purchaser.” – Per UWABUNKEONYE ONWOSI, JCA
EQUITABLE INTEREST – EFFECT OF POSSESSION AND PAYMENT:
“It is trite law that where a purchaser of land or a lessee is in possession of the land and has paid the purchase money to the vendor or has paid the rent to the lessor as the case may be, then in either case the purchaser or the lessee has acquired an equitable interest in the land which is as good as a legal estate and this equitable interest can only be defeated by a purchaser of the land for value without notice of the prior equity.” – Per UWABUNKEONYE ONWOSI, JCA
CALLING OF WITNESSES – PARTY’S DISCRETION IN CALLING WITNESSES:
“Even though it is trite that the law cannot force a party to call a certain person as a witness in proof of his case, it is dangerous and fatal for a party to omit vital witnesses that can help in proof of his case against another. Therefore, although a party is not required to call host of witnesses in other to prove his case, as one witness suffices if he is a vital witness; but failure to call a vital witness in prove a party’s case is fatal to the case of party. A witness who knows something significant about a matter is a vital witness. A vital witness is a witness whose evidence may determine a case one way or the other.” – Per UWABUNKEONYE ONWOSI, JCA
BURDEN OF PROOF – GENERAL PRINCIPLE:
Even though it is trite that the law cannot force a party to call a certain person as a witness in proof of his case, it is dangerous and fatal for a party to omit vital witnesses that can help in proof of his case against another. Therefore, although a party is not required to call host of witnesses in other to prove his case, as one witness suffices if he is a vital witness; but failure to call a vital witness in prove a party’s case is fatal to the case of party. A witness who knows something significant about a matter is a vital witness. A vital witness is a witness whose evidence may determine a case one way or the other.” – Per UWABUNKEONYE ONWOSI, JCA
BURDEN OF PROOF – GENERAL PRINCIPLE:
“It is elementary principle of law that he who asserts must prove. Section 131 of the Evidence Act, 2011 provides that whoever desires any Court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts shall prove that those facts exist.” – Per UWABUNKEONYE ONWOSI, JCA
ELEMENTS OF LACHES AND ACQUIESCENCE – REQUIREMENTS:
“Before a party can avail himself of acquiescence the following elements must be shown to be present by the Defendant – (a) That the Defendant was in fact mistaken as to his on right over the land; (b) That the Defendant had in reliance as to his mistake expended money on the land. (c) That the plaintiff knew of the existence of his own right which is inconsistent with the right claimed by the Defendant over the land. (d) That the plaintiff knew of the mistaken belief of the Defendant of his right and (e) That the plaintiff encouraged the Defendant in the Defendant’s expenditure of the money. Thus, to successfully maintain the defences of laches and acquiescence. The Defendant must prove high degree of acquiescence, which amounts to fraud and not mere lapse of time.” – Per UWABUNKEONYE ONWOSI, JCA
LACHES – AVAILABILITY TO TRESPASSERS:
“It is settled law that when trespassers knowingly and unlawfully takes possession of lands, the defence of laches is not available to them. See Nwakobi v. Nzekwu (1961) 2 All NLR 445. Per ANDREWS OTUTU OBASEKI, JSC (Pp 12 – 12 Paras F – G) and AKANNI & ORS v. MAKANJU & ORS (1978) LPELR-322(SC). A trespasser no matter the length of time on the land cannot metamorphose to the true owner.” – Per UWABUNKEONYE ONWOSI, JCA
ADEMPTION – RATIONALE FOR THE DOCTRINE:
Surely, the doctrine of ademption was conceived in equity so that of many children or those to whom a testator stood in loco parentis, one should not at the expense of the other or others take a double portion. (See In Re Tussaud’s Estate, Tussaud v. Tussaud (1878) 9 Ch.D. 363). Hence the relationship grounding the obligation to provide a portion must be established and a failure to do this is undoubtedly fatal to the case of the appellants.” – Per UWABUNKEONYE ONWOSI, JCA
SATISFACTION – CATEGORIES AND APPLICATION:
“In the course of his judgment in the High Court, the learned Chief Justice who tried the case referred to the following passage at page 598 in volume 14 of the 3rd edition of Halsbury’s Laws of England:- Satisfaction is the gift of a thing with the intention that it shall be taken either wholly or partly in extinguishment of some prior claim of the donee. Satisfaction may occur:- (1) when a covenant to settle property is followed by a gift by will or settlement in favour of the person entitled beneficially under the covenant. (2) when a testamentary disposition is followed during the testator’s lifetime by a gift or settlement in favour of the devisee or legatee; and (3) when a legacy is given to a creditor. Ademption is the term which correctly describes, among other matters, the second category of instances in which the doctrine of satisfaction applies.” – Per UWABUNKEONYE ONWOSI, JCA
NEMO DAT QUOD NON HABET – APPLICATION:
“Therefore, the later in time, when the Appellant claimed to have purchased the land in dispute, the title had already passed to the Respondents. The well established legal maxim, nemo dat quod non habet, which, in effect, means that no one may give that which does not belong to him.” – Per UWABUNKEONYE ONWOSI, JCA
CASES CITED
STATUTES REFERRED TO
Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended)
Evidence Act, 2011
Land Instruments Registration Law of Ogun State
Administration of Estate Laws Cap. 1 Laws of the Western Region of Nigeria
High Court of Ogun State (Civil Procedure) Rules 2014
CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT