CHIEF NURUDEEN OMOTAYO ALOWONLE v MR. KAYODE OKUOJA

CORAM

DALHATU ADAMU

PARTIES

1. CHIEF NURUDEEN OMOTAYO ALOWONLE (BAALE OF OJOKORO)

2. MR. GANIU SAFURAT BADAMR.

3. MUDASIRU OMOBOLA ADEKIWONSAMR.

4. BASHIRU ODUPERO

5. MR. ADIO JAIYESIMIMR.

6. NURENI ALOWONLE (for themselves and on behalf of Mofoju & Odumo family of Ojokoro Village Ikorodu in Ikorodu Local Government Area of Lagos State)

APPELLANTS 

1. MR. KAYODE OKUOJAMR.

2. SAIDI SHOKUBI OKUOJAMR.

3. RAFIU OMOTAYO IBRAHIMMR.

4. SIKIRU OREPITAN IWOFUN (BAALE OF AJAGURO)

5. MR. KAZEEM SHOKUNBI (For themselves and on behalf of the Okuoja family of Ajaguro Village Ikorodu Local Government Area of Lagos State)

6. MR. ADEMOLA WEMIMO ODUNAIYA (The only Swing Executive of the Estate of Pastor Idris Adelaja Odunaiya)

RESPONDENTS 

AREA(S) OF LAW

SUMMARY OF FACTS

SUMMARY OF FACTS
The Plaintiffs Herein Appellants instituted this action against the 1st -5th Defendants/Respondents and the 6th Defendant/Respondent claiming declaration of title, damages for trespass and perpetual injunction. The Defendants/Respondents counterclaimed and all parties tendered different survey plans as the identity of the land was the crux of the matter. The trial court at the end of the trial, dismissed the Appellants and 1st-5th Respondents claims and allowed that of the 6th Respondent, hence this appeal.

HELD

Appeal Dismissed

ISSUES

Whether the learned trial Judge’s identification of the land in dispute was not wrongfully done in confusion by which he failed to be conscious of the implications of the shifting nature of the Respondent’s cases, but made to over reach the Appellants when he refused to consider the previous judgments tendered by the Respondents their effects and implications on Respondents title claim, vis – a – vis identification of the land covered by Appellants previous judgment in Exhibit C1 and consequences of said judgment Whether it was right for the learned trial Judge to have refused to grant the Appellants claims for declaration of title, trespass and damages on establishing of proof of traditional history on ground that Respondents denied Appellants traditional history and Appellants been bound by their case thereon and, same is bereft of materials showing an affirmative link between them and the land in dispute, un-maintainable thereof, and consequently, but without also considering acts of ownership in proof of title in their claim cannot be granted?

2. Whether the failure of the learned trial Judge to consider and decide on aspects of the parties cases inclusive of that as based on evidence on res judicata raised by the Respondents, has not led to failure to properly decide the parties cases before him, but which made him wrongly decide that the 1st – 5th Respondents are thereby entitled to maintain trespass action on portion marked black in Exhibit D1?

3. Whether the learned trial Judge in holding the subsisting valid judgment herein of a court of coordinate jurisdiction with him can only be evidence of mere act of possession is not wrongful and by so doing upturning the said judgment by inference when not so sought nor he having power to so decide. Whether in view of the decision that 1st – 5th Respondents have not proved title, it was right to hold the 6th Respondent acquired valid title from them through a Deed, Exhibit D16 herein, and said Deed is effectual?

RATIONES DECIDENDI

IDENTIFICATION OF A DISPUTED LAND – IT IS THE DUTY OF THE CLAIMANT TO IDENTIFY LAND FOR WHICH HE SEEKS A DECLARATION OF TITLE

“It is trite that identification of a land in dispute starts with the claimant. A party is expected to clearly and precisely identify the land for which he seeks declaration of title, see Ogedengbe V Balogun(2007) 9 NWLR (Pt 1039) 38”.

IDENTIFICATION OF A DISPUTED LAND – A DEFENDANT HAS THE DUTY TO IDENTIFY LAND WHERE THE IDENTITY OF LAND IS AN ISSUE IN HIS PLEADING

“The primary duty therefore starts with the claimant but when a defendant in his pleadings puts in issue the identity of the land, he has a duty to clearly identify the said land”.

BURDEN OF PROOF – SHIFT OF BURDEN OF PROOF

“It is trite that parties claims are usually joined on pleading as to what the issue in dispute is, the first burden of proof rest with he who wants judgment in his favour. He must start and take the proof to a level after which it would shift on the defendant, see the case of Buhari V INEC &Others EPR VOL 4 623

PROOF IN CIVIL CASES – STANDARD OF PROOF IN CIVIL CASES

“Proof in civil cases is on the preponderance of evidence and in a claim seeking declaration of title, the claimant must plead relevant materials and support pleadings by evidence”.

RES JUDICATA – BURDEN OF PROOF IN A DEFENCE OF RES JUDICATA

“The burden of proof is on the person who set out the defence of res judicata to establish conclusively that the parties, the subject matter and the issues were the same in the previous case as those in the present action in which the plea was raised”.

PLEA OF RES JUDICATA – WHAT THE TERM PARTIES IN A PLEA OF RES JUDICATA ENTAILS

“The term parties in a res judicata plea covers not only those name or listed in the judgment or record of proceedings but also those represented and who had an opportunity to attend and protect their interest in the said proceedings, see Esiaku V Obiasogu 14 WACA 17”.

CASES CITED

STATUTES REFERRED TO

1. Court of Appeal Act

2. Evidence Act, 2004

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT