Chief S.O. Ogunola & Ors V. Hoda Eiyekole & Ors

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

OLATAWURA, J.S.C. 

This is an appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeal. Ibadan Division, dated 20th day of January, 1987 which affirmed the decision of the High Court of Ogun State dated 29th December, 1982.

The appellants who were the plaintiffs took out a writ of summons against the respondents who were the defendants and claimed after an amendment as follows:-

“(1) Declaration that the plaintiffs are entitled to the customary right of occupancy to the piece or parcel of land situate, lying and being at Soki-Ere, Ado-ado, Ogun State.

(2) Declaration that the defendants have forfeited their right to harvest palm fruits on the plaintiffs’ land as customary tenants of the plaintiffs’ family.

(3) Injunction restraining the defendants, their agents, servants and privies from going on the plaintiffs’ land reaping palm fruits therefrom.”

Pleadings were ordered, filed, delivered but were later amended. The amended pleadings were prolific. I will in the course of this judgment refer to some of the paragraphs which are relevant to the two reliefs which form the basis of this appeal. The simple and brief facts relied upon by the appellants were that they own the piece or parcel of land deriving title from their ancestor one ARILEGBOLOROSI who came from Ile-Ife more than 200 years ago.

He first of all settled at Isolo and later settled at SOKI ERE. It was at this latter place he established his farmland and planted various crops: palm trees, beans, pepper, yam and other crops. Their ancestor was in possession and he exercised various acts of ownership. He had a shrine called YEWA OLISA in his house which he built on his land. He and his family worshipped this shrine annually. The appellants are the descendants of the founder ARILEGBOLOROSI.

On the other hand, the appellants described the respondents as Eguns who were from Dahomey and who later came on the land as labourers and worked for ARILEGBOLOROSI. The Eguns were permitted to plant food crops such as yam, maize and cassava but were also to harvest palm fruits and make palm oil. They are tenants of the plaintiffs/appellants.

On the other hand the defendants/respondents claim the land in dispute as their own through their ancestor one AGENGE who migrated from DAHOMEY to the land in dispute about the same time the ancestors of the plaintiffs/appellants got to the land in dispute i.e. about 200 years ago. His descendants who are his relations and friends settled on the land on his invitation. They planted various crops, built houses and founded some villages which are still on the land in dispute.

Both parties led evidence in support of their amended pleadings. Both counsel also addressed the court.

In a judgment which examined every aspect of the pleadings, the evidence led and the submissions made, the learned trial Judge Delano, J. found for the plaintiffs/appellants in respect of the first claim and dismissed the other two claims. The appellants were dissatisfied with the judgment of the learned trial Judge and appealed to the Court of Appeal.

As pointed out earlier the appeal was dismissed on 20th day of January, 1987. On 20th February, 1987 the appellants filed 4 grounds of appeal. By a motion dated 22nd September and filed on 30th September, this court on 30th January, 1989 granted the appellants leave to file and argue additional grounds 1 and 3 exhibited to the motion. Ground 2 of the additional ground was then struck out.

On 13th April, 1989 the appellants filed another application seeking other prayers: leave to amend the notice of appeal, leave to amend the appellants brief of argument and leave to file and argue additional grounds of appeal. These prayers were granted on 11th September, 1989.