Oteri Holdings Ltd V. Oluwa & Ors (2020)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

AMINA ADAMU AUGIE, J.S.C. 

The land dispute that led to this Appeal calls into question the dichotomy between Nigerian Customary Law and the received English Law, in relation to land matters.

In 1970, a dispute within the Oluwa Chieftaincy Family of Lagos and Apapa, over the number of branches that constitute the Family, led to the institution of Suit No. LD/828/70 at the Lagos State High Court. While that Suit was pending, the Family, represented by the then Oluwa and Head of Oluwa Chieftaincy Family, and six principal members of the Family, leased a portion of its landed property at Industrial Road, off Kirikiri Road, Apapa, to the Appellant, who took possession.

The said Lease dated 31/12/1975, was registered in the Register of Deeds kept at the Land Registry, Ikeja, Lagos, as No. 53 at page 53 in Volume 1533.

​On 15/5/1987, Thomas, J., delivered his Judgment in Suit No. LD/828/70, wherein he concluded that “there are 5 Branches of the Oluwa Chieftaincy Family, namely, (1) Asalu (2) Odofin (3) Idewu (4) Faro and (5) Amore”. The Defendants, who claimed that there were three branches of the Family, and not five, appealed to the Court of Appeal, but the Appeal was dismissed for lack of diligent prosecution.

By an Application dated 30/9/1989, they attempted to restore the Appeal, but the Court of Appeal refused the Application in its Ruling delivered on 22/3/1990, and they appealed to the Supreme Court with a Notice of Appeal dated 31/5/1990. But the Appeal was withdrawn, and it was accordingly dismissed on 26/9/1992.

On 25/11/2004, the Lagos State Government approved the appointment of the first Appellant herein, who is from the Odofin Branch of the said Oluwa Family, as the new Oluwa of Lagos and Apapa, and he then constituted and inaugurated a fresh Executive of the Family with members drawn from all the five Branches. The Respondents requested a meeting with the Appellant to discuss the Lease, and when it refused to meet with them, they filed the action that led to this Appeal.

In the said action, filed by way of an Originating Summons dated 22/9/2011, the Respondents herein, as Claimants, prayed the High Court of Lagos State for:

An Order that they do recover possession of ALL THAT Parcel of Land at Apapa covering an approximate area of 5832 acres along the Industrial Road off Kirikiri Road, Apapa, Lagos, covered by Survey Plan No. AAW/U175 dated 19/5/1960.

In the Counter-Affidavit to Originating Summons, filed by Appellant as Defendant, it was averred in paragraph 7 – “that the action of the Claimants for the recovery of possession in respect of the Deed of Lease dated 31/12/1975 is statute barred.”

After the adoption of Written Addresses, the learned trial Judge, Alogba, J., raised the Issue of lis pendens. He requested parties to address him on it, which they complied with, and after the adoption of Written Addresses on the said Issue, the learned trial Judge delivered Judgment on 28/6/2013, wherein he held that –

Both learned counsel are agreed that the cause in this matter is the recovery of land. Whose land? The Oluwa Chieftaincy Family land, in whose possession – Defendant’s possession – how possession derived by Lease in 1975 from the Claimants family representatives as then constituted. Why claim by Claimants – now – because there was a squabble on the constitution of the Family representation or how Family was comprised. What’s the final decision on that – the Supreme Court’s Judgment of 1992 striking out the Appeal from the 1975 (sic) Judgment of the High Court – Coram Olusola Thomas J (as he then was) – that the Family was made up of five Branches. Afortiori, as from the date of the Supreme Court of Nigeria Judgment of 1992 the coast became clear for whoever in the Claimant’s family, who wished to challenge disposition of the Family’s land based on the three Branches representation, which was upturned by the High Court in favour of five Branches. By the provisions of Section 16(2)(a) of the Limitation law, such intending Claimants have up to 12 years from the date of the SCN Judgment on the issue in 1992. That will last up to sometime in 2004; 25/9/2004. Claimant’s Family did not take steps against the Defendant until 2011 when it began asking it to come and discuss the issue of the Lease of 1975. The Family eventually filed this action on 22/11/2011. That’s about 7 years after the cause of action had lapsed by operation of law. Accordingly, it is an inescapable conclusion that this action is statute barred and afortiori incompetent.

​The learned trial Judge concluded as follows on the said issue of lis pendens that:

The 1970 case was not about the sale of any real property or the one in issue here, nor was recovery of possession or declaration of title, the cause of that action. Those factors missing, it is therefore, an inescapable conclusion that the Doctrine does not apply in this case, and I so hold.