Abigail Folashade Vs Alhaji A. A. O. Duroshola (1961)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

ADEMOLA, C.J.F

In this case parties are competing purchasers of a piece of land at Lagos-Ikorodu Road, Mushin, in Ikeja district.

The plaintiff claimed from the defendant the sum of £660 being damages for trespass to the piece of land. He also prayed the Court to grant an injunction against the defendant, his agents and servants from further acts of trespass upon the said land.

The plaintiff claimed that he derived his title from Charles Olayemi Blaize.

The defendant also based his root of title from the same man.

The plaintiff relied on a sale of two plots of land, which he said is the land in dispute, to one Aminu Alfa in 1927 and 1926. The sale, he alleged, was made in two plots to Aminu Alfa by the agents of Charles Olayemi Blaize to whom the sum of £3- lOs-0d and £2 respectively was paid for each of the plots. The payment of the first amount was evidenced by receipt Exhibit A in favour of the said Aminu Alfa by one Sunmonu Raji whilst the payment of £2 was evidenced by Exhibit Al in favour of Aminu Alfa by one Joseph Ogundipe, an auctioneer. There was no evidence before the Court how these men became agents to the aforesaid Charles Olayemi Blaize. There was however no deed of conveyance executed by Blaize in favour of Aminu Alfa. The plaintiff however claimed to have bought the land from the next of kin of the said Aminu Alfa from whom he received in 1949 a deed of conveyance, Exhibit B. The recital in the deed Exhibit B referred to the two plots of land as being bought for £2 and 30s respectively and not for £3-10s-0d and £2 respectively as per the receipts.

Meanwhile in 1952, Charles Olayemi Blaize sold the land in dispute (or a large part of it) to one Ade Akodu to whom he executed a deed of conveyance Exhibit Q conveying his whole interest in the land in fee simple. In 1956 the said Ade Akodu transferred his interest in the land to the defendant and executed a deed of conveyance, Exhibit O.

After the sale to Ade Akodu in 1952 and indeed in 1955, the plaintiff obtained from Charles Olayemi Blaize a document, Exhibit D, which has been referred to by counsel as ‘a deed of ratification of the sale to the plaintiff witnessed by the deed Exhibit B’.

The recital in Exhibit D states that the plaintiff ‘became seized of Plots 138 and 139 of C. O. Blaizes allotment for the sum or price of one pound each …. ‘ although in her deed of conveyance Exhibit B, she had paid £70 for the land. The recital in Exhibit D, however, continued:-

AND WHEREAS in order to add more effect to his title the purchaser had requested the vendor (C. O. Blaize) as the original owner of the land to ratify and confirm the sale in his favour and the vendor had agreed to do so in the manner hereinafter appearing…………

NOW THIS INDENTURE witnesseth in pursuance of such agreement and in consideration of the sum of £2 sterling paid to the vendor by his auctioneer J. O. Ogundipe after the sale at a public auction held on the 14th November, 1925 (the receipt of which sum the vendor hereby admitted and acknowledge) the vendor as the original and beneficial owner hereby grants gives confirms ratifies conveys and assures unto the Purchaser her heirs and assigns in fee simple all the piece of land …..

The learned trial Judge disbelieved the plaintiff that she was in possession of the land until 1956. He found however that as from 1956 both the plaintiff and the defendant were in possession of the land in dispute. He then summed up the position succinctly thus:-

What I have to decide therefore is, who has the better title and therefore the right to possession.

The Judge eventually dismissed the plaintiffs claim from which judgment plaintiff appeals. Counsel on both sides do not quarrel with the summing up of the learned trial Judge but Mr Somolu for the appellant arguing the appeal before us, made two submissions: namely that the act of ratification by Blaize (Exhibit D) dates back from the date the two plots were sold in 1927 and 1926 for which the receipts Exhibits A and A1 were issued: secondly, that the respondent had notice of the earlier sale to the appellant in that he was bound by the notice to his predecessor in title, who if he had made a search in the Land Registry in Lagos would have found that there was a registered deed of conveyance (Exhibit B) in 1949 relating to the land in dispute, in favour of the appellant.