CORAM

---

EMMANUEL OLAYINKA AYOOLA, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

---

PARTIES

---

1. SHITTU ONIGBEDE2. SADIKU OGUNSAKIN [Substituted for Aminu Ogundipe-deceased]3. CHIEF E. O. FALUSI ALALUMOYE[Substituted for Aminu Omoyemi-deceased]4. DARE SALISU SOLOMON[Substituted for Chief Simeon Ogunbiyi-deceased]5. ADAM MOYAKI[Substituted for Lawal Oloroko-deceased]6. AMUDA SHABA7. AMOS OLOFIN8. CHIEF AJAYI AGBOYE9. ALHAJI SAKA ABUDU [For themselves and on behalf of Igbede Quarters, Ikare] APPELLANTS

---

RESPONDENTS

---

AREA(S) OF LAW

---

---

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The plaintiffs claimed title to the land in dispute and forfeiture against the defendants who were customary tenants. The defendants however claimed co- ownership on the grounds that they are members of the same family.

---

HELD

---

The court held the defendants failed to prove co- ownership and confirmed the decisions of the lower courts granting the plaintiff’s claims.

---

ISSUES

---

Whether the justices of Appeal were right in affirming the declaratory order that the land belong to the Respondents’ Odoso family when the Respondent’s case was that Urere the Original settler on the land was survived by four children of which Odoso family is only one but without any evidence of the partition of the land in dispute to the Odoso family?

Whether the lower Court was not in error to have affirmed that the appellants are customary tenants of the respondents and order forfeiture against them in view of that Court’s finding of trespass against the appellants and whether forfeiture was rightly granted against them’?

Whether the Justices of Appeal were right to have waived the need for a visit to locus-in-quo by the trial Judge and the making of a finding of fact in respect of the features on the land

Whether the Court of Appeal was right in deciding this case against the appellants on the ground that they did not prove where Urere settled on, on the land when they are only defendants in the suit?

Whether their Lordships of the Appeal were not in error to affirm that Exhibit ‘L’ constituted estoppel against the Appellants in this case?

Whether their Lordships of Appeal were right in their conclusion that the trial High Court rightly decided the case on traditional evidence alone?

Whether the Appellants were given fair hearing and had their case properly considered by their Lordships of the appeal.

Whether the judgment delivered by the Appeal Court was not a nullity?

---

RATIONES DECIDENDI

---

PRINCIPLES FOR DETERMINING THE EXISTENCE OF BIAS IN A TRIBUNAL

---

In considering whether there was a real likelihood of bias, the court does not look at the mind of the justice himself or at the mind of the chairman of the tribunal, or whoever it may be, who sits in a judicial capacity. It does not look to see if there was a real likelihood that he would, or did, in fact favour one side at the expense of the other. The court looks at the impression which would be given to other people- Ogundare J.S.C.

---

CASES CITED

---

AFRICAN CONTINENTAL BANK LTD. CALABER VS JOSEPH AGBANYM 1960 FSC 267/1959 [1960] NSCC 12
OSHIYEMI v. AKINBE (1995) 2 NWLR 556, 568
KOJO v. BONSIE (1957)1 WLR 1223 at p. 1226
ADEFULU ORS v. OKULAJA & ORS. (1998) 5 NWLRL 435
PEPPLE v. GREEN (1990) 4 NWLR (Pt. 142) 108,
DIME v. GRAND JUNCTION CANAL (1852) 3 HLC 759

---

STATUTES REFERRED TO

---

NONE

---

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT