Legalpedia Citation: (2010) Legalpedia (SC) 81627
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Fri Jan 22, 2010
Suit Number: SC. 283/2001
CORAM
PARTIES
1. YELE OYENEYIN (Trading under the name and style OYENIYI & SONS)2. CHIEF T.A. ADEBOLA (for himself & on behalf of LODUTI & AJAKA FAMILY) APPELLANTS
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The respondent/plaintiff gave the appellant/defendant notice of intention to terminate the tenancy given to the defendant after 3years grace to relocate his sawmill. The court partially granted the plaintiff’s claim for possession. Being dissatisfied, both parties appealed to the Court of Appeal. The court allowed the respondent’s cross-appeal. Being aggrieved both parties have filed a further appeal and cross-appeal.
HELD
The appeal and cross-appeal is dismissed
ISSUES
(i) Whether the Court of Appeal was right when it held that Exhibit “A” and “B” are valid and conferred valid title on the respondents when the grant made vide Exhibits A and B void ab initio.(ii) Whether the Court of Appeal rightly distinguished the present case from Lawal v. G.B. Ollivant (Nig). Ltd. (1922) All NLR pg. 211 without stating reasons and particulars of differences in the two cases.(iii) Whether the Court of Appeal was right in justifying the award of trial court for the sum of N25,000 (twenty five thousand Naira) representing damages for the loss of economic trees when such has not been specifically pleaded or proved.(iv) Whether the Court of Appeal was right in allowing the cross-appeal of the plaintiffs/respondents in its entirety having found that the trial court was right to have used the cross-appellants unchallenged evidence and held that the title in the land North of the sawmill had passed to the 1st defendant.(v) Whether the Court of Appeal rightly upheld the Penalty Clause contained in Exhibit H which is outside the ambit of the mandatory provision of the applicable law, on the ground that it is a voluntary agreement which is binding on the parties.
RATIONES DECIDENDI
DISPUTE OF OWNERSHIP: HOW DETERMINED
When the issue as to which of the two claimants has a better right to possession or occupation of a piece or parcel of land in dispute, the law will ascribe such possession and/or occupation to the person who proves a better title. Per ADEKEYE, JSC
DUTY OF PLAINTIFF IN ACTION FOR DECLARATION OF TITLE
.It is the duty of the plaintiff in an action for declaration of title to land to adduce sufficient and credible evidence to establish the mode of acquisition of this title and the plaintiff must succeed on the strength of his own case. Per ADEKEYE, JSC
VOID ACT: MEANING
.In law a void act is an act which has no legal effect or consequence. Per ADEKEYE, JSC
PRODUCTION OF TITLE DOCUMENT.
Production of document of title, which are duly authenticated is one of the five recognized ways in which ownership or title to land may be proved. Per ADEKEYE, JSC
CLAIM FOR TRESSPASS AND INJUNCTION.
Where a claim for trespass is coupled with a claim for an injunction – the title of the parties to the land in dispute is automatically put in issue. Per ADEKEYE, JSC
CASES CITED
1. Aramire v. Awoyenu (1972) 1 NWLR pt.1 pg. 1012. Fuson v. Beyioku (1988) 2 NWLR pt.76 pg. 2633. Akintola v. Lasupo (1911) 3 NWLR pt.180 pg. 5084. Okorie v. Udom (1960) SCNLR p.3265. Idundun v. Okumagba (1976) 9 – 10 SC 2276. Nkado v. Obiano (1997) 5 NWLR pt.503 pg. 31
STATUTES REFERRED TO
NONE