Home » WACA Cases » Alhadj Busari Adeeso Suleman & Anor V. Hannibal Johnson (1951) LJR-WACA

Alhadj Busari Adeeso Suleman & Anor V. Hannibal Johnson (1951) LJR-WACA

Alhadj Busari Adeeso Suleman & Anor V. Hannibal Johnson (1951)

LawGlobal Hub Judgment Report – West African Court of Appeal

Claim for Declaration of Title based on conveyance by original owners—Prior
adverse possession by respondent—Possession inconsistent with any title
remaining in the- original owners—Reversionary rights of original owners did not arise—Evidence required to establish acquiescence not so high as where original owners granted occupational rights and reserved to themselves a reversionary interest.

Facts

The defendant was the executor of a deceased person to’ whom the property was conveyed in fee simple in 1901. The deceased remained in undisturbed possession until his death in 1942 and the defendant also remained in undisturbed possession until 1948, when the appellant was granted a conveyance by the original owners, the Oloto family.


The main ground of appeal was that the trial Judge was wrong in holding that the reversionary interest of the Oloto family was extinguished by the adverse possession of the deceased person and his executor, the defendant.


The defendant’s claim was based on an absolute grant, and as the Oloto family never purported to have granted even occupational rights to him, the question of any reversionary interest did not arise. In such circumstances the evidence required to establish acquiescence was less than where the original owners had a reversionary interest.

Held

‘the possession by the defendant and his predecessors was inconsistent with any title in the Oloto family. The adverse possession existed for nearly fifty years, for the last twenty-two of which, at least, the occupiers were exercising such overt acts of ownership as would have provoked the Oloto family to assert their claim to ownership or possession.

See also  B. A. Owiredu & Ors V. Mamah Moshie & Ors (1952) LJR-WACA

The question of any reversionary rights did not arise, and, the quantum of evidence required to establish acquiescence was less than where a reversionary right existed. In the circumstances of this case the evidence established acquiescence and the plaintiff’s claim for a declaration of title failed.


Appeal dismissed.

More Posts

Section 47 EFCC Act 2004: Short Title

Section 47 EFCC Act 2004 Section 47 of the EFCC Act 2004 is about Short Title. This Act may be cited as the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (Establishment,

Section 46 EFCC Act 2004: Interpretation

Section 46 EFCC Act 2004 Section 46 of the EFCC Act 2004 is about Interpretation. In this Act – Interpretation “Commission” means the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission established

Section 45 EFCC Act 2004: Savings

Section 45 EFCC Act 2004 Section 45 of the EFCC Act 2004 is about Savings. The repeal of the Act specified in section 43 of this Act shall not

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

LawGlobal Hub is your innovative global resource of law and more. We ensure easy accessibility to the laws of countries around the world, among others