Alhaji Saratu Adeleke & Ors. V. Sandsi Iyanda & Ors (2001)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

UWAIFO, J.S.C. 

The plaintiffs (now appellants) sued at the High Court, Ibadan claiming against the defendants a declaration that they are entitled to statutory rights of occupancy in respect of three parcels of land verged red and marked A2, Band C respectively in plaintiffs’ survey plan No. LL 9282, damages for trespass and perpetual injunction. It is common ground between the parties that the said parcels of land are located at a place called Isebo. It is also common ground that they form part of a large piece of land originally owned by Ogunlade Alao Laamo and that the said Laamo had seven male children, namely, Ajayi, Omokebe, Ariwoola, Taiwo, Osuntala, Fabiyi and Olusingbin; and five female children, namely, Tinuomi, Ajibabi, Osunjinmi, Binutu and Osuntola.

From the pleading of the defendants, it does not appear parcel A2 is in dispute. I shall for the purpose of this judgment confine myself to parcels B and C. I should mention here that none of the parties to this case claims to be a descendant of Laamo. The case of the plaintiffs is that Laamo shared his land in Isebo and gave absolute grant to each of his seven male children. It was thereafter, in the course of inheritance and alienation which transpired from that absolute grant, that the plaintiffs claim to have acquired by purchase the lands in dispute, traced through the share of Ariwoola who was one of the children of Laamo.

The plaintiffs pleaded that Laamo in his life time granted portions of his land at Isebo to each of his seven sons absolutely for farming. He also granted land to his war lieutenants who included Efunwole Okesina and Areja, and also his domestics who included Fuleso. The area covered by the parcels marked Band C in the survey plan was part of the land granted to Ariwoola absolutely. He farmed it and when he died his son Akinleye inherited the land. When Akinleye was Mogaji he sold the areas marked Band to one Madam Osuntola to defend a case he was involved in. Madam Osuntola’s son called Lawani sold the land back to Chief Yesufu Itanola Laamo who took possession thereof some 50 years back from the time pleadings were settled in 1985. In 1977, Chief Itanola Laamo sold the land to the 1st plaintiff. The 1st plaintiff later granted portions to 2nd and 3rd plaintiffs, her children. The 4th and 5th plaintiffs are concerned with the parcel marked A2 which, as I said, does not appear to have been put in issue. The learned trial Judge himself (Olowofoyeku, J.) said so as follows:

“In regard to area (A2) of Exhibit W’A’ I have no evidence from the plaintiffs’ side complaining of any trespass or claim to the same by any of the defendants. Also the defence case as presented before the court did not lay any claim by any of the defendants (to) that area,”

On the other hand, the defendants aver that there was no absolute grant by Laamo to his children but that he merely permitted some of his children to farm on his land at Isebo and that after his death, the land became family property. But they admitted, as pleaded by the plaintiffs, that Laamo made absolute grant to his war lieutenants and domestics. As regards the area covered by parcels Band C, the defendants pleaded that Omokebe and Ariwoola (children of Laamo) merely fanned on them and that after they died, Akinleye and another fanned on the land. Their pleading is that while that land was family property, it was sold by Yesufu Itanola Laamo and his children to 4th defendant in 1977 and that sometime later 4th defendant sold a portion to 3rd defendant. It is also pleaded that Laamo granted a portion of the area of parcels B and C to one Dada, the grandfather of 1st defendant absolutely. When Dada died, his children who included the 1st defendant’s father inherited his land; the 1st defendant and his brother later inherited the land. The 1st defendant built on part of the land and sold part to 2nd defendant who has also erected a building thereon.

At the hearing of the case, Yesufu Itanola Laamo whom the defendants pleaded sold part of the land in dispute testified as P.W.2. He said he was the Mogaji of Laamo family. He gave evidence in support of the absolute grant made by Laamo to his seven sons and his war lieutenants and domestics. He described the 4th defendant as a land speculator. He said in cross-examination: “I have never sold family land to 4th defendant. The land I sold to 4th defendant is my father’s land at Ipolo on Egbeda road beyond Isebo.” Other witnesses, P.W.3 Alhaji Nafiu Adesiyan, P.W.4 David Ayoade Anisoro, P.W.5 Saka Aremu, p.w.6 Basiru Yusuf Itanola Laamo (P.W.2’s son) and P.W.7 Saka Lawal, testified as to who they know own the land in dispute. Of course they all spoke in favour of the plaintiffs. Witnesses also testified on behalf of the defence apart from the 1st and 4th defendants who testified. The witnesses for the defence connected with Laamo are d.w.2 Karimu Adegoke Taiwo, D.W.3 Alhaji Ganiyu Faoye and d.w.4 Jimoh Bolarinwa Laamo. Surprisingly, D.W.4 said it was Ismaila Laamo who first settled on the land in dispute at Isebo contrary to what was understood to have been pleaded as Ogunlade Alao Laamo. He then went to give evidence of genealogy which was not pleaded. He seemed to have confused most of the facts.

As it turned out in substance, it became a vital issue whether Laamo made to each of his sons absolute grant inter vivos (and some of his war lieutenants and domestics) as pleaded by the plaintiffs and given in evidence or that there was no such grant to his sons thereby leaving the bulk of his property including the land in dispute as family property as pleaded and given in evidence by the defendants. If there was such absolute grant and the land in dispute was part of what Akinleye inherited, the mode of sale and repurchase alleged as to whether it was in conformity with native law and custom will be of little or no importance in reaching a decision whether the present plaintiffs have proved a case that will entitle them to their reliefs vis-a-vis the defendants’ case that the land was part of Laamo family property.

The learned trial Judge seemed to have appreciated the basis of each party’s case. He said:

“Now it seems to be common ground that Laamo was the original owner of lands including the areas in dispute. It is also common ground that Laamo granted land to his war lieutenants and domestics some of whom were Efunwole, Areja and Fuleso. The area of issue lies in regard to what happened between Laamo and his children as regards his land. The plaintiffs’ case is predicated on grants during his lifetime by Laamo to his children whilst the defence maintained that the children of leave (sic: Laamo) were merely permitted to farm on the land and from the defence stand emerges the contention that the areas of Laamo’s land which his children were permitted to farm belonged to the Laamo family.”

The learned trial Judge without assessing the evidence adduced by both parties before him simply rejected the case of inter vivos grant presented by the plaintiffs based on his own personal understanding or perhaps personal knowledge. He said it was not usual, to use his words, “that a land owner would have during his life time divested himself of title to his land by a grant of the same to his children. Children usually succeeded to land after the death of the parent and could thereafter appropriate specific areas to each of them by partition or otherwise the land would remain family land which they could always use.”

There was also the evidence that Akinleye the son of Ariwoola sold the land which he inherited from the absolute grant made to Ariwoola by Laamo. The said land was sold to one Osuntola. Osuntola’91s son desired to part with the land and so P.W.2, Yesufu Itanola Laamo, repurchased the land for an amount of ‘a355 about 50 years back at the time evidence was adduced in 1986. The parcels of land B and C in dispute are said to be part of that land that was sold and later repurchased. The learned trial Judge had two reservations against this evidence. First he said there was no corroborative evidence in regard to the sale of the land by Akinleye and the purchase back of the same by P.W.2. Second, he said it was improbable that such land would have cost ‘a355 at that time. He then referred to what he said he knew from personal recollection of a parcel of land about that same time (1931) which cost ‘a31 per acre in Ibadan to the Government of Nigeria.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal deprecated the manner in which the learned trial Judge treated the evidence led by the plaintiffs by using his personal or private knowledge of some facts, and in some aspects his personal views not derived from the evidence before him. The Court of Appeal corrected that obvious misdirection. But unfortunately the lower court held the same view as the trial court that no evidence was led to corroborate the evidence of P.W.2 as to the sale of land by Lawani to him. It regarded that as “the great lacunae (sic) in the plaintiffs’ case.” It was virtually on that ground that the judgment of the trial court was upheld.

The plaintiffs have further appealed to this court and have raised two issues for determination as follows: