3PLR – AKINTOBI V. SODIMU

POLICY, PRACTICE AND PUBLISHING, LAW REPORTS  3PLR

[PDF copy of this judgment can be sent to your email for N300 only. Just order through lawnigeria@gmail.com and info@lawnigeria.com or text 07067102097] 

AKINTOBI

V.

SODIMU

FEDERAL SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA

29TH APRIL, 1957.

3PLR/ 49/1956

BEFORE THEIR LORDSHIPS:

OLUMUYI WA JIBOWU, AG. F.C.J. (Presided and Read the Judgment of the Court)

M.C. NAGEON DE LESTANG, F.J.

MYLES JOHN ABBOTT, AG. F.J.

BETWEEN

T.A. AKINTOBI

AND

1. A.O. SODIMU
2. Y.A. MOLIKI

MAIN JUDGMENT

LAND LAW -Declaration of title -Possession -When presence on land is not possession.

REPRESENTATION:

Mr. S.A. Ogunkeye – for the Appellant.

Mr. E.B. Craig (with him Miss Grant) -for the Respondents.

MAIN JUDGMENT

JIBOWU, Ag. F.C.J. (Delivering the Judgment of the Court):

This is an appeal from the judgment of Ademola, C.J., Western Region, dated the 18th July, 1955, whereby he dismissed the appellant’s action for a declara­tion of title and recovery of possession of a piece of land situate and being in Roman Catholic Mission Street, Ibadan, and for £500 damages for trespass to the said land.

The appellant derived his title from the family of Balogun Ibikunle who was said to have first settled in the area with his followers, and the respon­dent derived his title from the Otu family who claimed that the land in dis­pute was a portion of land on which the Otu family had settled for four gen­erations. In order to succeed, the appellant had to satisfy the Court that the Balogun Ibikunle family had a better title to the land in dispute than the Otu family. The traditional evidence led for the appellant was not convincing and failed to satisfy the learned Chief Justice that the land in dispute belonged to the Balogun Ibikunle family, who were not even able to say the extent of their family land. With this finding of fact I respectfully agree.

There was evidence, which the Chief Justice rightly accepted, that the Otu family had for years been exercising rights of ownership over pieces of land either adjoining or close to the land in dispute as owners without any in­terference from the Balogun Ibikunle family. It is clear from the evidence that there is only one piece of land between the land in dispute and the Roman Catholic Mission land which they acquired from the Otu family. It was not disputed that the Otu family also gave the land adjoining the land in question to one Obasa, deceased, whose brother gave evidence for the re­spondent. There was also evidence that the respondent reclaimed the land in dispute and put his brother, a blacksmith and a gardener on the land long be­fore the Balogun lbikunle family purported to sell the land to the appellant. The blacksmith and other tenants of the respondent were still on the land at the time of the trial of this case. In my view, the learned Chief Justice was right in holding that the appellant, who was walked off the land in dispute while he was surveying it, was never in possession of the land.

The only ground of appeal argued by Counsel for the appellant is the sixth ground that the verdict was against the weight of evidence, but I find no substance in this ground of appeal as, in my view, the weight of evidence is on the respondent’s side and the appellant’s action was rightly dismissed. I would, therefore, dismiss this appeal with costs fixed at £29.0. 0.

DE LESTANG, F.J.: I concur.

ABBOTT, Ag. F.J.: I concur.

Appeal Dismissed