CHIEF ADESINA JINADU VS CHIEF ISRAEL ESUROMBI-ARO

CORAM

D MUSDAPHER, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT

G A OGUNTADE, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT

F F TABAI, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT

J O OGEBE, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT

M S. MUNTAKA-COOMASSIE, JJUSTICE SUPREME COURT

G A OGUNTADE, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT

M MOHAMMED, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT

I F OGBUAGU, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT

PARTIES

1. CHIEF ADESINA JINADU (Substituted for Chief Bello Davies)

2. YINUSA ABU

3. KEHINDE SAVAGE (Substituted for Late Lawrence A Savage)

4. OLAJIDE SAVAGE

5. ALHAJI AMAO LAWAL

6. ISIAKA ADEWUSI (Substituted for Late Teslimi Adewusi)

7. MADAM IDOWU TOKOSI (Substituted for Late Mariam Tokosi)

8. LAMIDI TOKOSI

9. ALHAJI RAFIU KEKERE-EKUN (Substituted for late Karimu Kekere-Ekun)

10. ANIYU ANIMASHAUN

11. ALHAJI ALIATA RUFAIIGBOGBOJI

(Substituted for late Raimi Sule Igbogboji)

12.ALHAJI NURUDEEN OKO-OSI (Substituted for late Nimota Bankole)

(SUED FOR THEMSELVES AND ON BEHALF OF IGANMU COMMUNITY)

13. ALHAJI HAMZAT LAGUDA (Substituted for Alhaji A. K. Laguda)

FOR HIMSELF AND ON BEHALF OF THE YESUFU ADEOSI FAMILY

APPELLANTS 

CHIEF ISRAEL ESUROMBI-ARO

CHIEF ABDUL FATAI AROMIRE THE OJORA OF LAGOS (FOR THEMSELVES AND ON BEHALF OF OJORA CHIEFTAINCY FAMILY)

RESPONDENTS 

AREA(S) OF LAW

DECLARATION OF TITLE – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The respondent as plaintiff claimed title to land under native law and custom while the appellant as defendant claimed ownership on acts of possession. The trial judge granted the claim of the plaintiff. The defendant’s appeal to the Court of Appeal was dismissed. Hence the further appeal.

HELD

Appeal dismissed

ISSUES

Whether the Court of Appeal was right when it held that the plaintiffs/respondents were entitled to a declaration of title to the land in dispute. Grounds 1, 5 and 7

Whether the plaintiffs/respondents can maintain an action for declaration of title to the same land acquired by government even on the admission of the 9th Plaintiffs’ witness Chief Taoreed Lawal-Akapo. Grounds 6 and 9.

Whether the Court of Appeal properly considered the issues of admissibility and probative value of the documentary and oral evidence raised by the 1st -12th appellants in the determination of the appeal before them. Grounds 3, 6, 8, 10, 11 and 12.

Whether the plaintiffs/respondents proved that the 1st – 12th appellants, the 1st set of defendants/appellants were their customary tenants. Grounds 2 and 4.”

Whether on the state of the pleadings and admissible evidence before the court, the plaintiff could be said to have proved title to the land in dispute

Whether there is evidence that the 24th defendant/13th appellant’s family are customary tenants of the plaintiffs

Whether the evidence in support of the 24th/13th appellant’s case is sufficient to grant the counter-claim

Whether or not on the totality of the evidence called by the plaintiffs/respondents they were entitled to the judgments given in their favour by the two courts below.

RATIONES DECIDENDI

ADVERSE ORAL OR WRITTEN STATEMENT MADE BY A PARTY IN CIVIL PROCEEDINGS – ADVERSE ORAL OR WRITTEN STATEMENT IS ADMISSIBLE AGAINST THE PARTY WHO MADE SAME

“A statement oral or written made by a party to civil proceedings and which statement is adverse to his case or interest is admissible in the proceedings as evidence against him of the truth of the facts asserted in the statement”. PER OGUNTADE, JSC

DECLARATION OF TITLE TO LAND – WHEN EVIDENCE BEFORE THE COURT SHOW THAT OWNERSHIP OF LAND IN DISPUTE IS IN ANOTHER, SAME WILL BE DENIED

“In a claim for declaration of title, where there is evidence before the trial court that the ownership of the land in dispute is in another person who is not a party to the proceedings, the court would refuse to grant a declaration of title”. PER OGUNTADE, JSC

RIGHTS OF TRESPASSERS – TREPASSERS CAN MAINTAIN AN ACTION AGAINST THE WHOLE WORLD EXCEPT THE TRUE OWNER

“Trespassers such as respondents, without so deciding, can maintain an action against the whole world including the appellants except the true owner. See Amakor v. Obiefuna [1974] 1 All NLR (Pt.l) 119, [1974] NMLR 331 “. PER OGUNTADE, JSC

ORAL AND DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE – WHERE THERE IS ORAL AND DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE, THE LATTER SHOULD BE USED TO ASSESS THE FORMER

“It is settled that where there is oral and documentary evidence, documentary evidence should be used as a hanger from which to assess oral testimony. See Kimdy v. Military Gongola State (sic) (1988) 2 NWLR (Pt 77) 445 and Fashanu v. Adekoya (1974) 6SC.83 “. PER OGUNTADE, JSC

TITLE TO LAND – A PARTY CANNOT DENY HIS GRANTOR’S TITLE TO LAND BY RELYING ON A THIRD PARTY’S TITLE

“Where a party obtains possession of land from one person, he could not rely on title vested in another to defeat through a plea of jus tertii his grantor’s title.” – PER OGUNTADE, JSC

DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE – DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE SHOULD BE USED AS A HANGER FROM WHICH TO ASSESS ORAL TESTIMONY

“It is settled that where there is oral and documentary evidence, documentary evidence should be used as a hanger from which to assess oral testimony. See Kimdy v. Military Gongola State (sic) (1988) 2 NWLR (Pt 77) 445 and Fashanu v. Adekoya (1974) 6SC.83.” PER OGUNTADE, JSC.

CASES CITED

1. Seisemograph Service Niageria Laid. v. Chief Keke Ogbenekwe Eyaufe (1976) 9-10 SC. 135, 146; (1976) F.N.R. 162

2. Madumure v. Okafor (1996) 3-4 MAC 165

STATUTES REFERRED TO

Evidence Act

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT