3PLR – ANIFOWOSHE V SIYANBOLA

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] 

ANIFOWOSHE

V

SIYANBOLA

FEDERAL SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA

21 ST JUNE, 1956.

3PLR 37/1955

BEFORE THEIR LORDSHIPS:

SIR STAFFORD FOSTER-SUTTON, F.C.J. (Presided)

SIR JOHN VERITY, Ag. F.J.

WILLIAM HENRY IRWIN, Ag. F.J. (Read the Judgment of the Court)

BETWEEN

1. L.O. DADA ANIFOWOSHE
2. ADISA JINADU OGUNWUNMI

AND

JIMO TITILOLA SIYANBOLA

MAIN ISSUES

LAND LAW – Family property – Grant of permission to use – Nature of such.

LAND LAW – Family Property – Payment of water rates – Not enough estab­lishment of interest.

LAND LAW – Family property – Sale of – Consultation by head with senior members of family – Execution of conveyance with their approval – Suf­ficient for valid sale.

LAND LAW – Family property – Sale of – Opposition by just one member of family – Whether sufficient to invalidate sale thereof.

LAND LAW – Family property – Sale of – Status of family member opposing – Sale thereof – Important consideration.

LAND LAW – Family property – Sale of by senior members of family – Op­position to sale by junior member of family – Not tenable.

LAND LAW – Forfeiture – Precondition therefor.

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – EVIDENCE – Uncontroverted evidence of witness – Effect.

REPRESENTATION:

1. A. Kotun -for the Appellants.
2. J. Dosunmu -for the Respondent.

MAIN JUDGMENT

IRWIN AG. F.J. (Delivering the Judgment of the Court):

The respon­dent applied to the Registrar of Titles to have the land and buildings known as 11, Bajulaiye Street, Lagos, registered in his name as owner under the provisions of the Registration of Titles Ordinance, Cap. 197. This property was conveyed to the respondent by deed executed by the head and other members of the Bajulaiye Chieftaincy Family.

The appellants, L.O. Dada Anifowoshe and others objected to the ap­plication on the ground that:

“The property belongs to the Bajulaiye family and should not be disposed of or otherwise removed from the control and ownership of the family without the consent of its members.”

And the appellant, Adisa Jinadu Ogunwunmi, also objected on the ground that:

“The property is subject to native law and custom and that in virtue of the said native law and custom she has rights and interest in the said property.”

The Registrar having heard the evidence dismissed the application for registration and from his decision the respondent appealed to the Supreme Court as it then was.

The learned Judge on appeal set aside the order of the Registrar and di­rected that the title of the respondent be registered. The Registrar found that the alienation did not receive the consent of the family and for that reason allowed the objection lodged by L.O. Dada Anifowoshe and others. He does not, however, appear to have considered the status of Anifowoshe who is not the senior member of the Dosunmu branch, one of the five branches of the Bajulaiye family. The evidence of Amodu Sanni, the senior member of that branch, and of Yesufu Sanni, was that Anifowoshe refused to attend a family meeting at which it was decided to sell 11, Bajulaiye Street, and that he was the only member of their branch who opposed the sale. The learned Judge concluded, and I agree with him, that the evidence of these witnesses was not shown to have been untrue and that it should have been accepted by the Registrar. It is enough to establish as was done in this case that the senior members of the various branches of the family were con­sulted and that the conveyance was executed with their approval.

The appellant, Adisa, claimed as the successor of her father, Jinadu, who was an arota of the Bajulaiye family. It was, however, clear upon the evidence that the property in question was not allotted to Jinadu. He was al­lotted 2, Bajulaiye Street, as an arota, and it was later sold by him. After the sale he was given shelter at 11, Bajulaiye Street, which had been allotted to another arota, and Adisa was subsequently permitted to occupy one out of four rooms in that house. The tenants of the other three rooms, she said, first began to pay rent to her “a year ago,” that is after this dispute with the family had arisen.

For more than twenty years Adisa had received no rents from these ten­ants, and her payment of water rates did not establish her ownership.

Adisa also said in evidence that Olubori, a witness who was disbelieved by the Registrar, was one of those who arranged a room for her at 11, Bajulaiye Street.

She was not a descendent of the original allottee of that house and did not occupy it in right of her father but was permitted to live there as an act of grace on the part of the family and was in the position of a bare licensee. The Registrar found that there was no evidence of misconduct which would war­rant forfeiture of her rights. In this the learned Judge, I think rightly, held that he erred since there were in her case no rights which could be the subject of forfeiture.

I am of the opinion that the learned Judge was justified in concluding that the decision of the Registrar could not be supported having regard to the weight of the evidence. I do not, therefore, consider it material to deal with the complaint made in the first ground of appeal of observations in his judgment in relation to certain letters which were not put to. the witness, Olubori, at the hearing before the Registrar. I would accordingly affirm the judgment of the Court below and dismiss this appeal with costs fixed at £21.10.0d.

FOSTER-SUTTON, F.C.J.: I concur.

VERITY, F.J.: I concur.

Appeal Dismissed