Raimi Sanni V. Jimoh O. Oki (1971)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

COKER JSC

The appellant was the defendant, and the respondent the plaintiff, in an action in which the plaintiff’s writ was endorsed as follows:-

“The plaintiffs claim against the defendant:-

(1) A declaration of title that the plaintiffs are owners in fee simple or according to Native law and custom of all that piece or parcel of land in Block “A” Plot 15 of Approved Allotment Plan CT.29/50 situate, lying and being at Abule Ondo, Iwaya, on the mainland of Lagos and covered by a Deed of Conveyance dated the 6th day of July, 1959 and registered as No. 62 at page 62 in Volume 1140 of the Register of Deeds kept at the Land Registry, Lagos.

(2) One hundred pounds (£100) general damages for trespass committed by the defendant, his servant; and/or agents against the plaintiffs in respect of the said land.

(3) An injunction restraining the defendant, his servants and/or agents from committing further acts of trespass on the said land, and

(4) Possession of the said land.”

Pursuant to an Order of Court the parties filed their respective pleadings. According to the statement of claim, the plaintiff had purchased the land in dispute from one Ebenezer Babalola Bankole who himself had become owner of the land by virtue of a conveyance dated the 26th January, 1953. By his statement of defence the defendant claimed to have purchased the land from one Gregoria Da Costa who had bought from the Oloto Chieftaincy Family, the owners of the radical title to the land. At the trial both sides gave evidence and in particular there was evidence showing that the land claimed by the plaintiff and in respect of which he had sought a declaration of title fell within the land sold by the Oloto Chieftaincy Family to Gregoria Da Costa and in respect of which that family had executed a Deed of Conveyance to Gregoria Da Costa. Although there are no averments in the statement of claim to the effect, the plaintiff was allowed to call evidence through Chief Oloto to the effect that the land claimed by the plaintiff was part of the traditional lands of the Oloto Chieftaincy Family and that the land was allotted at one time by the family to one of its members for use and occupation, that it was later sold under a writ of execution to the predecessors-in-title of the plaintiff and that such land was not in fact included in the land sold to Gregoria Da Costa. In the course of his judgement, the learned trial judge observed as follows:-

“I have gone at length to review the earlier authorities in view of the circumstances of which the plaintiffs’ predecessors in title bought and obtained possession of the property. The present case is simpler and the case of the plaintiffs stronger than all the cases referred to above in that although the plaintiffs’ claim is on the pleadings adverse to theirs, the original owners of the land came to give evidence to support the plaintiffs’ claim against the defendant.”

The learned trial judge then considered the evidence about the execution sale of which nothing but oral evidence had been given and observed thus:-

“The plaintiffs, in my view, are entitled to judgement. They have satisfactorily proved that the land was sold to them by a person who derived his title from Madam Bintu Fatumo who bought the land by public auction with the knowledge and consent of the original owners of the land. There is no evidence before me that the land sold to the defendant is part of the land bought by Da Costa from the Oloto Chieftaincy Family. In fact there is overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Assuming however that I am wrong, and that the sale by public auction coupled with the consent of the Oloto Chieftaincy Family did not pass any interest to Madam Bintu Fatumo and Omoleso, there still remains the fact that Madam Fatumo and Omoleso have been in long and uninterrupted possession of the land since 1921, without let or hindrance. This is sufficient to defeat the interest of the Oloto Family.”

He eventually gave judgement for the plaintiff in the following terms:-

“Judgement is therefore entered for the plaintiffs for a declaration of title that they are the owners in fee simple of the piece of land claimed in the writ of summons; £50 damages for trespass, and possession of the said land with costs assessed at 100 guineas to the plaintiffs.”