Oba Goriola Oseni & Ors V. Yakubu Dawodu & Ors (1994)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

IGUH, J.S.C.

In the High Court of Lagos State presided over by Olusola Thomas, J., the respondents who were the plaintiffs, for themselves and on behalf of the Ilogbo Elegba Community instituted an action against the appellants who therein were the defendants, for themselves and on behalf of the people of Iba claiming as follows:-

“(i) The sum of N5000.00 jointly and severally against the defendants as special and general damages for trespass committed by the defendants to the plaintiffs’ land in their possession situate, lying and being at Ilogbo-Elegba in the Bada Division of Lagos State of Nigeria and

(ii) Perpetual injunction restraining the defendants, their agents, privies, servants and so on from repeating or continuing or committing further acts of trespass to the plaintiffs’ land in their possession.”

Pleadings were ordered in the suit and were duly filed and exchanged with the same amended and further amended by various court orders.

The appellants in their amended Statement of Defence counter-claimed against the respondents for the following reliefs:-

”(i) An order setting aside the compromise settlement dated the 20th April, 1977 entered into between the 1st plaintiff in Suit No. LD/631/72 and the defendants therein (including the 3rd and 15th defendants in this suit No. LD/1496/81) on the ground pleaded hereinbefore;

(ii) The sum of N25,000.00 being special and general damages occasioned by acts of trespass on portions of defendants’ land by the plaintiffs, their servants, agents and/or privies on diverse dates from 1977 to date;

(iii) An order of perpetual injunction restraining the plaintiffs, their servants, agents and/or privies from such further acts of trespass on the defendants’ land as per the plan filed herein.”

The respondents in turn filed their reply which, with the leave of court, was subsequently amended in answer to the appellants’ amended Statement of Defence and counter-claim. The case accordingly proceeded to trial and the parties testified on their behalf and called witnesses.

It appears desirable at this stage to set out briefly the background facts to the dispute between the parties. In doing this, I propose to adopt the facts as accurately summarised in the lead judgment of Babalakin, J.C.A., as he then was, with which Ademola and Awogu, JJ.C.A., agreed. These are in the following terms, namely:

“The facts that led to this appeal are as follows:

In 1961, four neighbouring families met and agreed on boundaries Inter se. Ifako stream was agreed between the plaintiffs who are now the respondents in this appeal and the defendants who are now the appellants in this appeal, to be the boundary between their lands. By 1972, the appellants trespassed on the respondents’ land and the respondents sued in suit LD/631/72 and in a consent judgment on 20/4/77, the land was divided into two parts using plan number SOL/36/73 as basis.

The two parties kept to their respective boundaries until in 1980 when the appellants’ people crossed their boundary and went and broke down houses of some members of the respondents’ community. Relying on the consent judgment which the respondents maintained is binding on both parties, they took action for N5,000.00k damages for trespass and for injunction against the appellants for further trespass to the land in their possession i.e., the land in dispute in the present action.