ALHAJI SADIAT AMEEN & ORS VS AMOS AMAO & ORS

CORAM

PARTIES

1. ALHAJI SADIT AMEEN2. ZACHEUS OGUNLUDE3. AJIBADE ADISA. For and on Behalf of Themselves and the Entire Members of Abogunde Family. APPELLANTS

RESPONDENTS

AREA(S) OF LAW

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The appellants (as plaintiffs in the High court) took out a writ of summons against the defendants/respondents claiming that they are the original owner of land under Natives Law and Customs and damages for trespass against the defendants, the decision of trial court was affirmed by the Court of Appeal. The appellant thus appealed to the apex court.

HELD

APPEAL DISMISSED

ISSUES

Whether the order of non-suit was hinged on the provision of Section 36 of the Land Use Act and whether the order made without hearing the parties can be sustained. Whether the appellants were liable on trespass and whether the respondents proved any act of damages at the trial.

RATIONES DECIDENDI

TITLE TO LAND – WHEN POSSESSION BECOMES TRESPASS

“As a follow up, the matter of possession takes a back seat where title has been proved to reside in the other part}. It is in the light of that, that once in an action of trespass such as the current one and title is put in issue the decisive question that arises is who has proved the better title. Then when the claiming party fails in his bid to prove title or radical title as called, then it is not necessary to consider the act of possession that stems from such a failed title claim. The natural flow of events would be that the act of the appellants as in the case in hand translates automatically as trespass and so the presumptions of the law on nominal general damages are in operation.” PER MARY UKAEGO PETER-ODILI, JSC

TITLE TO LAND – WHEN POSSESSION BECOMES TRESPASS

“As a follow up, the matter of possession takes a back seat where title has been proved to reside in the other part}. It is in the light of that, that once in an action of trespass such as the current one and title is put in issue the decisive question that arises is who has proved the better title. Then when the claiming party fails in his bid to prove title or radical title as called, then it is not necessary to consider the act of possession that stems from such a failed title claim. The natural flow of events would be that the act of the appellants as in the case in hand translates automatically as trespass and so the presumptions of the law on nominal general damages are in operation.” PER MARY UKAEGO PETER-ODILI, JSC

CASES CITED

ONWUKA V. ONONUJU & ORS (2009) 5 SCNJ 85 ROBERT C OKAFOR V. A.G. ANAMBRA & ORS (1999) 7 SCNJ 192 at 201 ADESANYA V. OTUEWU & ORS (1993) 1 SCNJ 77 at 113 & 114 NKANO V. NKANO (1997) 50 LRCN 1 at 1127 EHOEHIN NIG. LTD & ORS V. MBAKWE (1986) 1 SC 99

STATUTES REFERRED TO

NONE

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT