Ladejo Onifade Vs Alhaji Olayiwola & Ors (1990)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

NNAEMEKA-AGU , J.S.C. 

In an Ibadan High Court, the plaintiff, Ladejo Onifade suing for himself and members of Amason family claimed against the three defendants jointly and severally as follows:-

“(1) Declaration that the plaintiffs are the persons entitled to a grant of statutory right of occupancy in respect of all that piece or parcel of land situate, lying and being at Oko Aponrin Oke Ogbere Agugu Area, Ibadan.

(2) N1,000.00 being special and general damages for trespass committed by the defendant on the said piece or parcel of land situate, lying and being at Oko Aponrin Oke Ogbere, Agugu Area, Ibadan in 1978 or thereabout which trespass still continues.

(3) Injunction restraining the defendants, their agents, servants and/or agents from committing further acts of trespass on the land in dispute or in any way disturbing the plaintiff’s possession of the said land value of the land is N20.00 per annum.”

After the exchange of pleadings, the matter proceeded to trial before Ayoola, J., who after full hearing dismissed the plaintiffs case in its entirety. It was the plaintiffs case at the hearing that the land in dispute which is the area verged green on the plaintiffs plan, Exh. A, was owned by Amosun who had got the land by grant from Alli, the son of Adeniji, in the time of Dada as Bale. According to Alimi Alamo, a member of Amosun family, Amosun planted palm trees, kola trees, bitter kola trees, cassava and corn on the land. On his death, Amosun’s family, Onifade also used the land. Onifade later left the land to take up a fresh farmland at Akinyele but he put one Ogunjobi (‘Jobi) on the land. It was on Onifade’s death that the plaintiff started to use the land. In 1978, according to Alamu, members of Amosun family found pillars, later building foundations on the land. They found the 2nd and 3rd defendants on the land. On further investigation, they discovered that it was the 1st defendant who sold the land to them. Further investigations revealed that the 5th, 6th and 7th defendants of Odunekun family had sold a portion of the land to the 2nd defendant, Alhaji Adetunji. Hence he joined all the other defendants. The plaintiff called witnesses to prove his case.

The defendants’ case is that the land originally belonged to Odunekun and that Odunekun Mosobaleje Olajide settled on the land on his return from Ijaiye war and started to farm thereon, his boundary men were Kebinsi, Omino Babamuni and Agbe. His father later sold the land in dispute to the 4th defendant in 1970 and executed the conveyance, Exh. B. The defendant denied that there were kola trees on the land when they bought it.

After trial and addresses of counsel, the learned trial Judge made a number of important findings of fact. On the plaintiff’s root of title, he held:

“There is, however, a signal from the case put forward by the plaintiff both on his pleadings and in his evidence. There was neither averment not evidence as to how Alli acquired the land which he was said to be granting to his friend. Although Oyebanji Badiru testified that the land originally belonged to Adeniji that fact was not pleaded at all. The result is that the plaintiff has failed to prove the title of his ancestor’s alleged grantor. A person who claims title to land and seeks a declaration to that effect by virtue of a grant must prove the title of his grantor, unless the defendant admits the title of such grantor. In the instant case, the plaintiff has neither set out in his pleadings, nor adduced evidence of the title of his grantor.”

On the evidence of user, the learned trial Judge concluded as follows:

“When it comes to acts of user of the land one finds the evidence of user by the plaintiff not very strong. It is part of the plaintiffs case that the trees destroyed on the land were 150 cocoa trees, 120 palm trees, 80 orange trees, 90 kola trees; 40 bitter kola trees. I find it incredible that such a large number of trees would be on an area of land which, as shown on the plan Exhibit A is a little under 3.5 acres, when one remembers that, in addition to these things, it is claimed that Amosun and Onifade had planted food crops on the land. I do not believe the evidence of the plaintiffs witnesses that all these economic trees were on the land. The evidence of the 1st and 6th defendants as to the quantity of economic trees on the land seems more credible.”

On the evidence of user in recent times, the learned trial Judge found as follows:

“As to the user of the land in recent times, there is hardly much to choose from in the evidence of the plaintiffs witness and that of the 5th and 6th defendants. Alimi Alamu (1st P.W.) said that he did not personally farm on the land,the 4th PW Abidoye Adeyemo said that the person who was farming on the land was one Oloko Kankangian whose identity throughout the case was obscure. There was certainly nothing to connect this Oloko Kankangian with Ogunjobi whom the plaintiff claimed was put on the land by Onifade. The 6th PW Lasisi Amoo who said that his father Egunjobi was put on the land also went on to say that after the death of his father 11 years ago, he too went on the land, but he did not say exactly what he was doing on the land or who put him there. That the plaintiff’s case is that Egunjobi was put on the land whereas the evidence is that it was Egunjobi who was on the land is hardly satisfactory. It is incredible that the plaintiff would not know the correct name of the person whom he claims was his father’s caretaker on the land. In the result I find the evidence as regards the presence of a caretaker on the land unreliable.”

Again he concluded: