AJOSE-ADEOGUN & ANOR v. OLOJEDE & ORS CITATION: (2018) LPELR-43683(CA) In the Court of Appeal In the Lagos Judicial Division Holden at Lagos ON MONDAY, 22ND JANUARY, 2018 Suit No: CA/L/445/2002 Before Their Lordships: MOHAMMED LAWAL GARBA Justice, Court of Appeal YARGATA BYENCHIT NIMPAR Justice, Court of Appeal ABIMBOLA OSARUGUE OBASEKI-ADEJUMO Justice, Court of Appeal Between 1. HON. JUSTICE (RTD) OLATUJI AJOSE-ADEOGUN (Suing for himself as head and on behalf of the SASORE-ABAPO chieftaincy family) 2. CHIEF WAIDI AYENI (The Sasore of Lagos) (Suing for himself as principal member of the SASORE-ABAPO Chieftaincy family and on behalf of other principal member of the SASORE-ABAPO chieftaincy family) - Appellant(s) And 1. WING COMMANDER DR OLUSEGUN OLOJEDE 2. MR SHAKIRU AKERELE (For himself as head and on behalf of one Arobieke family of Langbasa Village, Eti-Osa, Lagos State) 3. ALHAJI LATEEF FAGBEMI 4. CHIEF SAHEED ADENIYI SANNI 5. ALHAJI GBADEBO ADESANYA 6. ALHAJI ADESINA HASSAN - Respondent(s) (2018) LPELR-43683(CA)
56
Embed
(2018) LPELR-43683(CA) - lawpavilionpersonal.com · AJOSE-ADEOGUN & ANOR v. OLOJEDE & ORS CITATION: (2018) LPELR-43683(CA) In the Court of Appeal In the Lagos Judicial Division Holden
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
AJOSE-ADEOGUN & ANOR v. OLOJEDE & ORS
CITATION: (2018) LPELR-43683(CA)
In the Court of AppealIn the Lagos Judicial Division
Holden at Lagos
ON MONDAY, 22ND JANUARY, 2018Suit No: CA/L/445/2002
Before Their Lordships:
MOHAMMED LAWAL GARBA Justice, Court of AppealYARGATA BYENCHIT NIMPAR Justice, Court of AppealABIMBOLA OSARUGUE OBASEKI-ADEJUMO Justice, Court of Appeal
Between1. HON. JUSTICE (RTD) OLATUJIAJOSE-ADEOGUN(Suing for himself as head and on behalf of theSASORE-ABAPO chieftaincy family)2. CHIEF WAIDI AYENI(The Sasore of Lagos)(Suing for himself as principal member of theSASORE-ABAPO Chieftaincy family and on behalf ofother principal member of the SASORE-ABAPOchieftaincy family)
- Appellant(s)
And1. WING COMMANDER DR OLUSEGUN OLOJEDE2. MR SHAKIRU AKERELE(For himself as head and on behalf of oneArobieke family of Langbasa Village, Eti-Osa,Lagos State)3. ALHAJI LATEEF FAGBEMI4. CHIEF SAHEED ADENIYI SANNI5. ALHAJI GBADEBO ADESANYA6. ALHAJI ADESINA HASSAN
- Respondent(s)
(201
8) LP
ELR-43
683(
CA)
RATIO DECIDENDI1. ACTION - REPLY: When will it be necessary to file a reply to a defence to a counter claim
"The need to file an answer or reply to a defence to a counter-claim would only arise if theissue(s) raised therein was relevant in the determination of the counter-claimants' case, inwhich case the presumption of admission in the absence of such answer or reply, may beinvoked."Per GARBA, J.C.A. (P. 42, Paras. A-B) - read in context
2. APPEAL - REPLY BRIEF: Essence of a reply brief"As a reminder, under the provisions of Order 19, Rule 5 (1) of the Court of Appeal Rules,2016, the only purpose for which an Appellant's Reply is to be used is to deal with, answer orrespond to all new points arising from the Respondent's brief. A Reply brief is not an avenuefor reaction or response to all or every point canvassed in the Respondent's brief in answerto the Appellant's brief, or for the purpose of further arguments of an appeal on issuesalready argued in an Appellants' brief either for emphasis or in addition to the points alreadycanvassed therein Agala v. Okusin (2010) 10 NWLR (1202) 412; Ojukwu v. Obasanjo (2004)7SC (pt. 1) 117; Mini Lodge Ltd. v. Ngei (2009) 12 MJSC (pt. 1) 56; Oshoboja v. Amida (2009)12 MJSC (pt. 1) 96. Thus, where no new or fresh points are raised or arise from theRespondent's brief, an Appellant's Reply becomes unnecessary in an appeal since it is notmeant to be either a repair kit or for improvement of arguments canvassed on points in theAppellant's brief. Duzu v. Yunusa (2010) 10 NWLR (1201) 80; Olafisoye v. FRN (2004) 4NWLR (864) 580; Ojiogu v. Ojiogu (2010) 9 NWLR (1198) 1."Per GARBA, J.C.A. (Pp. 14-15,Paras. E-E) - read in context
3. APPEAL - INTERFERENCE WITH AWARD OF DAMAGES: Circumstances in which anappellate court will interfere with award of damages made by a trial Court"In the Appellants' case, the trial Court has ruled out the entitlement of the 4th-6thRespondents' to the damages they claimed either as special or general damages fortrespass. In the circumstances, there was no basis for a later-reversal of the decision tomake an award of the damages the 4th-6th Respondents were found not to be entitled to.The law generally, is still that an appellate Court would not ordinarily interfere with theaward of damages made by a trial Court and can only do so in established and recognizedcircumstances or situations. Kaydee Ventures Ltd v. Min, FCT (2010) 7 NWLR (1192) 171;Ajagbe v. Idowu (2011) 17 NWLR (1276) 422; Ero v. Tinubu (2012) 8 NWLR (1301) 104. Oneof such situations is where the award was made in disregard of the fact and evidence in acase as well as the relevant principles of law. In this regard, the trial Court could proceed toaward damages which it had found on the facts and evidence before it, were claimed orproved. The damages awarded was as or for compensation, which the 4th-6th Respondentsneither claimed nor proved. A Court not being a charitable institution is confined to thecases presented and reliefs claimed by the parties and cannot award a party a relief notclaimed, except it may be a consequential relief, or grant more than was sought or prayedfor by a party. Mustapha v. Bulama (1999) 3 NWLR (595) 376; Ajao v. Ademola (2005) 3NWLR (913) 636. The Court has the duty to interfere and set aside the award by the trialCourt in the circumstances of the appeal."Per GARBA, J.C.A. (Pp. 45-46, Paras. A-B) - read incontext
4. DAMAGES - AWARD OF DAMAGES: Guiding principles for the award of general damagesfor trespass"Ordinarily, generally damages may arise and be awarded where there was proof of the tortof trespass by a party against the exclusive possession of a piece of land by another party ora party who proves a better a title. Igbinovia v. Okomu Oil Palm Plc. (2002) 17 NWLR (796)386; SPDCN Ltd. v. Ekwems (2009) 4 NWLR (1131) 229."Per GARBA, J.C.A. (Pp. 44-45, Paras.E-A) - read in context
(201
8) LP
ELR-43
683(
CA)
5. EVIDENCE - TRADITIONAL EVIDENCE/HISTORY: What a party relying on traditionalhistory is expected to plead and prove to establish his root of title; effect of failure of a partyto prove same"First settlement presupposes deforestation of virgin land where no other persons had beenbefore and which is under no control or authority of any other persons or community.However, first settlement would include deforestation of a virgin land and conquest of theprevious persons or community on a land, and then settling on the land. Since undercustomary and traditional law, conquest is one of the modes or ways of acquiringownership/title to land, satisfactory proof by traditional evidence of such conquest, wouldground ownership/title to the land in question. Ajiboye v. Ishola (2006) 13 NWLR (998) 628;Mogaji v. Cadbury Nig. Ltd. In the absence of clear and positive avernments of fact of firstsettlement by their forbearer or that he in fact founded or deforested the land in dispute asa virgin land, the foundation of the claims by the Appellants to be the only true and bonafide original owners of the land, is absent from their pleadings. Where a plaintiff predicateshis claim for a declaration of title on traditional history, it would not be sufficient for him tomerely plead or barely assert that he and his predecessors in title had owned and possessedthe land in dispute since a particular period or from time beyond memory. The issue oforiginal ownership of land by traditional evidence is one of hard historical facts and aclaimant has a duty to plead specific and necessary facts and materials to sustain the titlebased thereon which must be proved as required by the law. Title to land based orpredicated on traditional history evidence cannot be established or proved by bareassertions or general sweeping statements of the claimant. See Olokunlade v. Samuel(2011) 17 NWLR (1276) 290. The basis of the claim by the Appellants' on the ground of firstsettlement on the land in dispute by their forbearer, relying on fact of traditional historytherefore fails in these circumstances."Per GARBA, J.C.A. (Pp. 23-24, Paras. B-F) - read incontext
6. EVIDENCE - TRADITIONAL EVIDENCE/HISTORY: What is required of a person relying onevidence of traditional history in an action for declaration of title to land"The law is firmly settled over the years now, that in pleading traditional history in a claimfor declaration of title to land, the plaintiff or claimant has a duty and so is expected tonarrate the genealogical tree from the original owner, the ancestor in generationsappurtenant to him, down to the plaintiff/claimant. Put another way, the plaintiff is requiredto plead who founded the land he claims, the manner in which it was founded, and thecircumstances leading to it; e.g., first settlement or acquisition by conquest, and thesuccessive Persons to whom the land devolved from the founder, through an unbroken chainin such a way that there is no gap which is not or cannot be explained. See Akunyili v. Ejidike(supra); Nneji v. Chukwu (1996) 10 NWLR (478) 265; Anabaronye v. Nwakaihe (1997) 9NWLR (482) 374; Igbojimadu v. Ibeabuchi (1998) 1 NWLR (533) 179; Dike v. Okoloedo (1999)10 NWLR (623) 359; Odi v. Iyala (2004) 8 NWLR (875) 283; Irawo v. Adedokun (2005) 1NWLR (906) 199; Alikor v. Ogwo (2010) 5 NWLR (1187) 281."Per GARBA, J.C.A. (Pp. 18-19,Paras. F-D) - read in context
7. EVIDENCE - PROOF OF TITLE TO LAND: Ways of proving title/ownership of land"The law is also very well known that title to a piece or parcel of land can be proved byanyone of five ways, including traditional history evidence. The ways are: - (a) traditionalhistory evidence - Ezenwa v. Agu (2004) 3 NWLR (861) 431 @ 456; Ezeakabekwe v. Emenike(1998) 62 LRCN, 4855; (b) documents of title - Nnabuife v. Nwigwe (2010) 9 NWLR (719)710; Alli v. Alesinloye (2000) 6 NWLR (660) 117; Adeniran v. Alao (1992) 2 NWLR (223) 350;(c) by various acts of ownership, numerous and positive and extending over a length of timeas to warrant the inference of Ownership-Okafor v. Idigo (1984) 1 SCNLR, 481; Ebevuhe v.Ukpakara (1996) 7 NWLR (460) 254. (d) by acts of long possession and enjoyment of theland under Section 35 of the Evidence Act, 2011 (same provisions as in previous Acts). SeeAgbara v. Amara (1995) 7 NWLR (410) 712 @ 734; Atanda v. Ajani (1989) 3 NWLR (111) 511.(e) by proof of possession of adjacent land in circumstances which render it probable thatthe owner of such land would in addition, be the owner of the land in dispute. Piaro v. Tenalo(1976) 12 SC, 31; Nwosu v. Udeala (1990) 1 NWLR (125) 188; Oladipupo v. Olaniyan (2000)1 NWLR (624) 556."Per GARBA, J.C.A. (Pp. 19-20, Paras. D-E) - read in context
(201
8) LP
ELR-43
683(
CA)
8. EVIDENCE - BURDEN OF PROOF/ONUS OF PROOF: Whether a plaintiff can rely on theweakness of the defendant's case to prove his own case in action for declaration of title"In addition, a claimant for declaration of the title to land is to succeed in such a claim, onthe merit and strength of his own case and not on the weakness of the defendant's defenceor case, but can rely on defendant's evidence which support his own case, Clay Ind. Nig. Ltdv. Aina (1997) 8 NWLR (516) 208; Dike v. Okoloedo (supra); Oyeyemi (2008) 6 NWLR (1084)542."Per GARBA, J.C.A. (Pp. 20-21, Paras. E-A) - read in context
9. EVIDENCE - EVIDENCE ON UNPLEADED FACTS: Effect of evidence on facts not pleaded"The law is trite that evidence not supported by pleadings of a party goes to no issue and ofno probative value or worth in a case even if unchallenged and uncontroverted. Adimora v.Ajufo (1988) 6 SCNJ, 18; Awoyegbe v. Ogbeide (1988) 1 NWLR (73) 695; Adejumo v.Ayantegbe (1989) 3 NWLR (110) 417; Egbunike v. ACB Ltd (1995) 2 NWLR (375) 34; SPDCNv. Ambah (1999) 2 SCNJ, 152."Per GARBA, J.C.A. (P. 26, Paras. A-B) - read in context
(201
8) LP
ELR-43
683(
CA)
10. EVIDENCE - PROOF OF TITLE TO LAND: Whether a plaintiff can turn around to rely onacts of ownership and possession to prove his title to land where his evidence of traditionalhistory fails"The claims by the Appellants, of being in possession of and exercising rights of ownership ofthe land in dispute since the settlement of Chief Shasore-Abako, are clearly predicated;completely and entirely, on their claim of title and ownership by first settlement, discoveryor founding one of the modes or ways of acquiring title to land under customary law. Theclaim that the Appellants are the true and bona fide original owners of the land is based onthe claim of first settlement, discovery or founding by Chief Shasore-Abako. Since their claimto possession of and exercise of rights of ownership of the land in dispute are predicated onthe failed claim of first settlement, the Appellants cannot turn round to rely on the allegedpossession or exercise of the acts of ownership to claim title to the same piece of land asthere would be no foundation for such acts of possession and ownership. In the case ofFasoro v. Beyioku (1988) 2 NWLR (1976) 263, the Supreme Court has stated the law that -"One cannot relay talk of facts of ownership without first establishing that ownership. Wherea party's root of title is pleaded as say - a grant, or a sale or conquest, etc, that root has tobe established first, and any consequential acts following therefrom can properly qualify asacts of ownership. In other words, acts of ownership are done because of, and in Pursuanceto the ownership. Ownership forms the quo warranto of these acts as it gives legality to actswhich would have otherwise been acts of trespass." The law, as stated earlier, is that aclaimant who pleads traditional history as the root of his title to a piece of land, but fails toprove the root by that means, cannot turn round to rely on acts of ownership and possessionto prove his title to the land in question. Oyadare v. Keji (2005) 7 NWLR (925) 571;Orunengimo v. Egebe (2007) 15 NWLR (1058) 630; Alikor v. Ogwo (2010) 5 NWLR (1187)281; Anukam v. Anukam (2008) 5 NWLR (1081) 455. The trial Court was on the firm terrainof the law when it stated at page 17 of its judgement (Page 606 of the Record of Appeal)that: - "Without doubt where a party pleads and relies on a particular mode of acquisition ofhis root of title, he is under a duty to prove such mode of acquisition to the satisfaction ofthe trial Court before his claim of title can succeed. Where, however the radical title is notproved, it is long settled that it is not permissible to substitute a pleaded particular root oftitle that has failed with other matters such as acts of possession, numerous and positive towarrant the inferences of the ownership not pleaded as root of title. See: - 1. Chief Odofin vs.Isaac Ayo-Ola (1984) 11 S.C. 72 at 116-117; 2. Fasoro & Anor. vs. Beyioku & ors. (1988) 2NWLR (Pt. 76) 263; 3. Mogaji & Ors. vs. Cadbury (Nig.) Ltd. (1985) 2 NWLR (Pt.7) 393 at 429.In law, there is a distinction between proof of title to land by traditional evidence and proofby acts of possession and ownership. As a general rule, a claimant who pleads acts ofpossession and ownership as his root of title to a piece of land, he relies on the presumptionof the law in Section 35 of the Evidence Act 2011 (Section 46 of the 1990 Act) thatpossession is presumed to be evidence of ownership of the land and anyone who allegesthat a party in possession is not the owner, bears the legal burden of proving the allegation.The presumption of the law on possession would not arise and/or avail a claimant whopleads and relies on a specific root of title to the land since the claim is based on a knownroot of title which must be proved satisfactorily or else the claim would fail, Balogun v.Akanji (2005) 10 NWLR (933) 394; Agbetu v. Akinboyo (2012) LPELR-9749 (CA). In claimsbased on traditional history as the root of title, acts of possession and ownership by theclaimant may only be resorted to where there are two (2) conflicting versions of thetraditional history evidence none of which is more probable, sufficient and conclusive toprove the title claimed by either of the parties. Balogun v. Akanji (supra); Oyadare v. Keji(supra); Odofin v. Ayo-Ola (1984) 11, SC, 72; Kojo II v. Bonsie (57) 1 WLR, 1223."Per GARBA,J.C.A. (Pp. 26-30, Paras. F-C) - read in context
11. EVIDENCE - TRADITIONAL EVIDENCE/HISTORY: When will conflict in traditional historyarise"In any case, conflict in traditional history evidence may only arise if it is pleaded andevidence given in respect of an identified piece of land about which there is no doubt ordispute between the parties. Put another way conflict in traditional history evidence by theparties can only arise if evidence given by both parties is in respect of the same piece ofland irrespective of the names given or ascribed to it by the parties."Per GARBA, J.C.A. (P.30, Paras. D-F) - read in context
(201
8) LP
ELR-43
683(
CA)
12. EVIDENCE - RELEVANT FACTS/EVIDENCE: Whether facts so closely connected with thefact in issue are relevant"As rightly stated by the trial Court, facts which, though not in issue, are so connected with afact in issue as to form part of a transaction, are relevant, whether they occurred at thesame time and place, or otherwise. Such facts are admissible in evidence in proof or disproofof facts in issue in judicial proceedings. Fawehinmi v. NBA (No.2) (1989) 2 NWLR (105) 558;B.O.N. v. Saleh (1999) 9 NWLR (618) 331; Anozie v. Obichere (2006) 3 NWLR (981) 145;Odon v. Barigha-Amange (No.2) (2010) 12 NWLR (1207) 13."Per GARBA, J.C.A. (Pp. 38-39,Paras. F-B) - read in context
13. EVIDENCE - BURDEN OF PROOF/STANDARD OF PROOF: Burden and standard of proofin civil cases; whether a plaintiff must succeed on the strength of his case and not on theweakness of the defence"Like in all civil matters, parties must succeed on the strength of their case which will bedecided on the preponderance of evidence or on the balance of probabilities, see Section134 of the Evidence Act, 2011. See also OLAIFA & ORS v. DAVID TANIMOMO & ORS (2017)LPELR - 43252(CA)."Per NIMPAR, J.C.A. (P. 47, Paras. B-D) - read in context
14. EVIDENCE - TRADITIONAL EVIDENCE/HISTORY: Whether traditional evidence of firstsettlement on the founding of land will not be admissible if not pleaded"Failure to plead clear and positive avernments of fact of first settlement by the forbearer orthat he ipso facto founded or deforested the land in dispute as a virgin land is fatal to theclaim of the Appellants. In OBI IZEDIUNO EZEWANI OBI v. NKADI ONWORDI & ORS. (1986)LPELR -124 (SC), the Supreme Court, OPUTA JSC at 42 - 43, paras G - B: "General speaking,all relevant facts are to be pleaded and if the traditional history of a party to an action is arelevant fact, then that history ought to be specifically pleaded failure to so plead will renderany evidence of such facts not pleaded inadmissible. The Trial Judge is bound to expungesuch evidence from the record when considering the Judgment."See GEORGE & ORS v. DOMINION FLOUR MILLS LTD. (1963) 1 ALL NLR 71 at 77; ANIEMEKAEMEGOKWUE v. JAMES OKADIGBO (1973) 4 SC 113 at 117. See also DEACON CHIEF ISAACFATIMEHIN v. CHIEF LAWANI (2014) LPELR - 23476 (CA), where LOKULO - SODIPE, JCA at 39 -40, paras C - A restated the position of the law that it is actually from a party's pleadingsthat the success or failure of the party's case flows."Per OBASEKI-ADEJUMO, J.C.A. (Pp. 48-49,Paras. B-A) - read in context
15. LAND LAW - ROOT OF TITLE: Whether a party who fails to prove a root of title can rely onanother mode of acquisition of title to land not pleaded by him"The law is also that a party who pleads a root of title by any of the established ways, butfailed to prove same, cannot turn round at the trial to seek or claim to rely on another rootnot pleaded by him Nnadozie v. Mbagwu (2008) 3 NWLR (1074) 363; Owhonda v. Ekpechi(2003) 17 NWLR (849) 326; Bello v. Sanda (2012) 1 NWLR (1281) 219."Per GARBA, J.C.A. (P.21, Paras. A-B) - read in context
(201
8) LP
ELR-43
683(
CA)
MOHAMMED LAWAL GARBA, J.C.A. (Delivering the
Leading Judgment): This is an appeal against the
judgement of the High Court of Lagos State delivered on
the 27th September, 2002 in Suit No. LD/1339/94, in favour
of the 4th-6th Respondents. By their Amended Statement of
Claim, the Appellants had claimed the following reliefs
against the 1st-6th Respondents (then Defendants): -
"(1) An order of perpetual injunction restraining all
the 1st-6th Defendants herein whether by themselves,
their agents, servants, privies and howsoever
described from entering or remaining upon, taking
possession of or otherwise exercising any rights,
whether of purported ownership or sale over the
Plaintiff's 209 hectares (516.468 acres) landed
property situate, lying, known and being at Ijoyi
settlement generally in present day Eti-Osa Local
Government Area of Lagos State more particularly
described and shown in a declaration of interest
dated 15th March 1977 and attached to a Survey Plan
No. CSA 133 of 8th December 1976 both registered as
No. 95, page 95, volume 1614 at the Lands Registry,
Lagos.
(2) A declaration of title to the said 209 hectares
(515.468
1
(201
8) LP
ELR-43
683(
CA)
acres) Land and that the Plaintiffs are the persons
entitled to the rights of occupancy from the Lagos
State Government.
(3) Damages in the sum of N3, 000,000 against the
1st-6th Defendants jointly and severally for the
unlawful entry upon and dealings with the Plaintiff
said Landed property."
As can be gleaned from the facts of the Appellants'
pleadings, these claims were predicated on the traditional
evidence that their forebearer; one Chief Sasore-Abapo was
the first settler on the land they claimed.
The Respondents denied the claims by the Appellants, filed
their respective statements of defence and the 2nd and 3rd
Respondents as well as 4th-6th Respondents' counter-
claimed against the Appellants to which the Appellants filed
defence.
After the filing and exchange of pleadings by the parties,
the case proceeded to trial during which the Appellant
called seven (7) witnesses in proof of their claims while the
Respondents also called witnesses in support of their
respective cases. At the end of trial, the High Court
delivered the aforenamed judgement in favour of the
4th-6th Respondents and being dissatisfied therewith, the
Appellants
2
(201
8) LP
ELR-43
683(
CA)
brought this appeal, which by the 3rd Amended Notice of
Appeal filed on the 18th October, 2017, is predicated on
nine (9) grounds.
In the 3rd Amended Appellants' brief filed on the same date
with the Amended Notice of Appeal, seven (7) issues are set
out for determination in the appeal. They are as follows: -
“I. Whether there was any conflict in evidence of
traditional history given by both sides and if so,
whether the lower Court identified and properly used
evidence of recent event to resolve such apparent
conflicts in favour of the plaintiffs?
II. Whether in spite of the lack of any evidence to
controvert the plaintiffs' case to the land in dispute
the Court was right to declare title in favour of the
4th-6th Defendants?
III. Whether the trial Court was right in imposing a
burden of proving consent or approval of any
authority to establish title to land "held under
customary native law of land tenure"?
IV. whether "Exhibit L" was properly admitted and if
so whether it was properly evaluated by the trial
Court?
V. Whether the Court can rely on findings from the
locus in quo that is not documented or supported by
3
(201
8) LP
ELR-43
683(
CA)
evidence?
VI. Was the oral evidence of PW3 regarding the
common boundary with the plaintiffs rightly rejected?
VII. Whether the trial Court ought to have awarded
damages against the Plaintiffs?"
A sole issue is said to call for decision in the appeal at
Paragraph 3.1 on page 7 of the 2nd Respondent's brief filed
on the 19th October, 17, in the following terms: -
"Having regard to the state of pleadings and evidence
in support, particularly Plaintiffs/Appellants' terse
evidence, whether the lower Court was not right in
dismissing the Plaintiffs/Appellants' case."
For the 4th-6th Respondents, two (2) issues are said to
arise for determination in the 4th-6th Respondents'
Amended brief filed on the 19th October, 2017. They are: -
"1. Did the Appellants as Plaintiffs at the lower Court
prove their claim for declaration of title to the land in
dispute?
2. Was the trial Court right in granting declaration of
t i t le to the land in dispute to the 4th-6th
Respondents?"
Although the 1st Respondent was shown to have been duly
served with all the relevant processes of the appeal;
particularly the briefs of argument filed by the other
4
(201
8) LP
ELR-43
683(
CA)
parties to the appeal named above, there was no record, at
the oral hearing of the appeal, that he fi led his
Respondent's brief or any other process in the appeal.
Looking calmly at the issues raised by the Appellants, the
questions therein can conveniently, fully and effectively be
answered and determined by the determination of the issue
whether from the pleadings and evidence before it, the
High Court was right in law to have entered judgement in
favour of the 4th-6th Respondents in respect of the land
claimed by the Appellants, or in dispute. This sole issue
also subsumes the issues raised by the Respondents, and I
intend to use it in the determination of the appeal, on the
authority of, among other cases, Sha v. Kwan (2000) 8
NWLR (670) 685 @ 700; Onochie v. Odogwu (2006) 6
NWLR (975) 65; Chabasaya v. Anwasi (2010) 10
NWLR (1201) 163 @ 181 and Gov. Ekiti State v.
Olubunmo (2017) 3 NWLR (1551) 1 @ 23. In the
determination of the issue, relevant submissions made on
the parties' issues would be considered.
Appellants' Submissions
After reference to the evidence of DW9, DW10 and DW11,
witnesses called by the 4th-6th Respondents and the
evidence
5
(201
8) LP
ELR-43
683(
CA)
of PW4 and PW5 as well as Exhibit B for the Appellants, it
is submitted that there was no conflict in the traditional
evidence between the parties as to the first settlement on
"Ijoyi/Abegede" settlement; the land claimed by the
Appellants because the evidence of the 4th-6th
Respondents was on settlement at "Langbasa" which was a
nearby and different settlement from "Ijoyi/Abegede". The
High Court was said to have used and relied on Exhibit L to
resolve a conflict that did not exist in the traditional
evidence of the parties, contrary to the principle that
recent acts as established by evidence be used to resolve
any conflict in traditional evidence. Irolo v. Leka (2002)
14 NWLR (786) 195 @ (239) and Fasanya v. Adekoya
(2000) 15 NWLR (689) (no page provided) were cited
and it is contended that the traditional evidence of a
separate and distinct land is not reliable evidence to
resolve conflict in traditional evidence and support a
judgement, citing Eze v. State (2000) 10 NWLR (679)
(no page provided). The Court is urged to use the
evidence of the Appellants' witnesses on acts of long
possession and ownerships to find for them on authorities
which include
6
(201
8) LP
ELR-43
683(
CA)
Ishola v. Abake (1972) 5 SC, 321 @ 329-30; Nwocha v.
Odumelem (1995) 1 NWLR (869) 43 @ 47 and Idehen
v. Olaye (1991) 5 NWLR (191) 344 @ 354. The
Appellants' case was said not to have been controverted by
the evidence of the 4th-6th Respondents and the Court is
urged to discountenance the additional evidence of PW11
for being inadmissible on the ground that he was not sworn
for the evidence contrary to Section 179 of the Evidence
Act. In the alternative, it is contended that the evidence did
not deal with first settlement or founding of Ijoyi; the land
in dispute, but on "Langbasa" and so the High Court erred
in giving title to the land which their evidence did not
support. Onwuchekwa v. Ezogu (unreported decision)
in Appeal No. SC/88/1998 delivered on 27th September,
2002 (not provided) was referred to for the submission.
It is also the case of the Appellants that it was wrong for
the High Court to have held that they failed to prove the
consent of any Chief, King Dosunmu or governor of Lagos
State when there was no burden on them to do so, since
they did not plead title through the patronage of those
people. The Court is urged to so hold.
In addition,
7
(201
8) LP
ELR-43
683(
CA)
it is argued for the Appellants that Exhibit 'L', (Intelligence
Report on the Eti-Osa Native Authority Area) was not
relevant to the case and so inadmissible in evidence under
the provisions of Sections 6-12 of the Evidence Act. The
English case of R v. Killbourne (1973) AC, 726 @ 756
was referred to.
In further argument, it is said that High Court wrongly
used unrecorded notes of evidence of the visit to the locus
inquo to reject Exhibit 'A' which was tendered by PW2 who
gave oral evidence on it contrary to the rules laid in
Ikyaawan v. Ajivah (1997) 4 NWLR (499) 36 and
Ipinlaiye II v. Olukotun (1996) 6 NWLR (453) 180.
In addition, the High Court was said to have wrongly
rejected the evidence of Pw3 on boundaries of the land
claimed by the Appellants as decided in a case on the
ground that a copy of the judgement was not in evidence,
relying on Section 131 of the Evidence Act. It is argued that
the Appellants did not seek to give effect or enforce the
judgement in question but to prove the fact that boundaries
exist between common owners and reliance was placed on
Olorunfemi v. Asho (1999) 1 NWLR (585) (no page
provided) on evidence of boundary
8
(201
8) LP
ELR-43
683(
CA)
neighbours in an action for declaration of title to land.
Lastly, it is submitted for the Appellants that the High
Court erred in awarding damages when it had found that
there was no proof of the damages claimed by the 4th-6th
Respondents and the Court is urged to set the award aside.
Eseigbe v. Agholor (1993) 9 NWLR (316) 128 was
cited.
2nd Respondent's Submissions
It is submitted that the Appellant did not prove their
traditional title over a continuous and unbroken period of
time to warrant the High Court granting them title because
what they gave evidence on, were recent acts within living
memory which cannot be regarded as proof of tradition by
the authority of Ewo v. Ani (2004) 3 NWLR (861) 611 @
628 and Idundun v. Okumagba (1976) 9-10, 227,
which also set out ways of proving title to land. The
Appellants are said to have failed to discharge the burden
of proof imposed on them by the law which requires that
they succeed on the strength of their case upon the
preponderance of credible and sufficient evidence. Echi V.
Nnamani (2000) 8 NWLR (667) 1 @ 19 and Gankon v.
Ugochukwu Chem. Ind. Ltd (1993) 6 NWLR (297) 55
@ 75-6 were cited for the
9
(201
8) LP
ELR-43
683(
CA)
submission.
According to learned Counsel for the 2nd Respondent, the
2nd Respondent pleaded and proved their title by tracing
the title of their ancestors in graphic details, the names of
the successive owners through whom they derived the title.
He then contended that the Appellants' evidence casts a
shadow over the claim of exclusive ownership of the land in
dispute since it shows that Shasore and Arobieke families
are one and have always been treated as such, which
constitutes admission against interest to the benefit of the
2nd Respondent. Anason Farms Ltd v. NAL Merch.
Bank (1994) 3 NWLR (331) 241 @ 252 was referred to
and it is submitted that the law, in Mogaji v. Cadbury
Nig. Ltd (1985) 2 NWLR (7) 393, is that where a plaintiff
and his witnesses give conflicting stories on his root of
title, the root would be treated as unreliable.
It is also the case of the 2nd Respondent that the identity of
the land was not an issue joined by the parties in their
pleadings as the Respondents did not dispute the
description of the land in the Appellants' pleadings, though
different names were given by them. Makanjuola v.
Balogun (1989) 3 NWLR (108) 192
10
(201
8) LP
ELR-43
683(
CA)
@ 204 and Ogbu v. Wokoma (2005) 14 NWLR (944)
118 @ 139 were cited and the Court is urged to dismiss
the appeal, in conclusion.
4th-6th Respondent's Submissions
The submissions are to the effect that the Appellants’
pleadings on their root of title to the land in question are in
paragraphs 4-8 of their Amended Statement of Claims and
their evidence did not prove the claims of first settlement
and unbroken succession. It is submitted that the case of
Appellants was that their ancestor, was an exile who settled
at Langbasa and farmed at Ijoyi, but there were no
pleadings and evidence of how he got the land at Ijoyi to
farm thereon and that none of them own any farm at Ijoyi
and are not in possession. Learned Counsel for the 4th-6th
Respondents submitted further that there is a difference
between the grant of land and settlement on land for the
purpose of a claim for declaration of title to land. That a
grant comes from a previous title holder to a subsequent
person while a settlement does not recognize a previous
title holder and that a claimant by grant must establish the
title of his grantor in order to succeed on the authority of
Kode v. Yussuf (2001) 4 NWLR (703) 392. Also, that a
11
(201
8) LP
ELR-43
683(
CA)
party who pleads a particular root of title but fails to prove
it, cannot rely on another root of title not pleaded to
support the claim, by the authority of Ude v. Chimbo
(1998) 12 NWLR (577) 169 @ 182. Relying on Akunyili
v. Ejidike (1996) 5 NWLR (449) 381 @ 404, it is
submitted that the claim that their forbearers have
occupied the land before human memory does not avail the
Appellants since their ancestor was an exile and not an
indigene.
Furthermore, it is contended that since the Appellants
pleaded title by grant to their ancestor by Kosoko and they
failed to prove it, the High Court was right to dismiss their
case as they could not thereafter resort to claim for title by
settlement which, in any case, they also failed to prove.
The principle of resolving conflict in traditional evidence
stated in Kojo II v. Bonsie (1957)1 WLR 1223 @ 1226
is said not to be applicable to the case as the Appellants'
evidence contradicted their pleadings as to the ownership
of the land in dispute and so not reliable on the authority of
Igbojimadu v. Ibeabuchi (1998) 1 NWLR (533) 170 @
193 and Obioha v. Duru (1994) 8 NWLR (365) 631 @
650.
The High
12
(201
8) LP
ELR-43
683(
CA)
Court was said to be right in resolving the conflict in the
evidence of the parties by the use of observations at the
visit to the locus in quo and also refusal to use evidence of
proceedings which were not placed before it. Carlen Nig.
Ltd v. Univ. of Jos (1994) 1 NWLR (323) 631 and Jiaza
v. Bamgbose (1999) 7 NWLR (610) 182 were referred
to.
Exhibit 'L' is said to be relevant to the case before the High
Court for being record pertaining to the history of Lagos
State.
It is then contended that the 4th-6th Respondents' case as
pleaded in Paragraphs 7-9 of their statement of defence
and counter claim was proved by the evidence of DW8,
DW10 and DW11 that, one Elejigbo, first settled on the land
in dispute at Langbasa, Ijoyi-Nla, Ijoyi-Kekere and Abegede
and that he put Arobieke in possession. In conclusion, the
Court is urged to dismiss the appeal.
In the Appellants' further Amended Reply to the 2nd
Respondent's brief, it is submitted that the Appellants have
pleaded and led evidence to show that Chief Shasore
founded Ijoyi as first settler through PW4 and PW5, and
that the evidence of acts of ownerships and possession was
not to prove traditional
13
(201
8) LP
ELR-43
683(
CA)
history but to show how the Appellants' acts of possession
were numerous and positive. It is also said that a party is
entitled to prove title to land by anyone or more of the
established ways or mode of such proof as set out in
Idundun v. Okumagba (supra) and State in Balogun v.
Akanji (2005) 10 NWLR (933) 394 @ 399. The cases
cited by the 2nd Respondents are said not to be apposite to
the facts of the Appellants' case and it is argued that the
Appellants have pleaded and proved their claim to title to
the land in dispute as required by law and the High Court
erred to have granted title to the 4th-6th Respondents.
Most of the other submissions in the Reply are further
arguments of the appeal or reactions to the point canvassed
in the 2nd Respondent’s brief, which are not new or fresh
points that require response since the record of the
pleadings and evidence adduced before the High Court are
in the Record of Appeal. As a reminder, under the
provisions of Order 19, Rule 5 (1) of the Court of Appeal
Rules, 2016, the only purpose for which an Appellant's
Reply is to be used is to deal with, answer or respond to all
new points arising from the Respondent's
14
(201
8) LP
ELR-43
683(
CA)
brief. A Reply brief is not an avenue for reaction or
response to all or every point canvassed in the
Respondent's brief in answer to the Appellant's brief, or for
the purpose of further arguments of an appeal on issues
already argued in an Appellants' brief either for emphasis
or in addition to the points already canvassed therein
Agala v. Okusin (2010) 10 NWLR (1202) 412; Ojukwu
v. Obasanjo (2004) 7 SC (pt. 1) 117; Mini Lodge Ltd.
v. Ngei (2009) 12 MJSC (pt. 1) 56; Oshoboja v. Amida
(2009) 12 MJSC (pt. 1) 96. Thus, where no new or fresh
points are raised or arise from the Respondent's brief, an
Appellant's Reply becomes unnecessary in an appeal since
it is not meant to be either a repair kit or for improvement
of arguments canvassed on points in the Appellant's brief.
Duzu v. Yunusa (2010) 10 NWLR (1201) 80; Olafisoye
v. FRN (2004) 4 NWLR (864) 580; Ojiogu v. Ojiogu
(2010) 9 NWLR (1198) 1.
The Appellants' Further Amended Reply to the 4th-6th
Respondents' brief, like the Reply to the 2nd Respondent's
brief, contains, substantially, reactions or response to all
the points canvassed in the 4th-6th Respondents brief and
further arguments of the appeal,
15
(201
8) LP
ELR-43
683(
CA)
saying, essentially, that they are either erroneous or
misconceived. It is maintained that the Appellants have
discharged the duty to plead and prove their claim to the
title to the land in dispute through traditional evidence of
how it was founded, and the intervening owners through
whom they derived the title.
The proper foundation for the determination of the issue
would be a look at and consideration of the respective
cases presented by the parties before the High Court, in
both pleadings and evidence.
Primarily, the case of the Appellants before the High Court,
as per their pleadings, is as contained in paragraphs 3, 4, 5,
7 and 8 of the Amended statement of Claims dated 6th,
2000. The facts pleaded in the paragraphs, are as follows: -
"3. The Plaintiffs avers that they are the true
members of the SASORE-ABAPO CHIEFTAINCY
FAMILY, the only true and bona fide original owners
of the 209 hectares (516,468 acres) of land lying at
Ijoyi in the present day Eti-Osa Local Government
Area of Lagos State (‘the landed property in Dispute').
4. The members of SASORE-ABAPO CHIEFTAINCY
FAMILY through their forbearers have held and
occupied the
16
(201
8) LP
ELR-43
683(
CA)
landed subject matter of this suit in Yoruba
customary occupation since before living memory.
5. The Plaintiffs aver that one CHIEF SASORE-ABAPO
of Lagos at the time of the 19th Century lived and
farmed at Ijoyi in present day Lagos State and
maintained a Chieftaincy house known as an 'Iga'
[Palace] at Langbasa Village, Eti-Osa Local
Government Area of Nigeria.
7. The Plaintiffs aver that one Chief SASORE-ABAPO a
forbearer of the plaintiff family an Abagbon Chief of
Lagos lived in exile in Langbasa and sustained himself
with the crop of farm at Ijoyi the landed property in
dispute due to his service to OBA KOSOKO of Lagos
in the period 1841-1851 and through the several wars
and migrations that followed the said family has since
held the Landed Property in customary occupation.
8. The Plaintiffs’ family is a Chieftaincy family of
Lagos who held the land in dispute as “stool land”
through the office and persons of the SASORE of
Lagos from the time of the first settlement of Chief
SASORE-ABAPO of Lagos during the wars between
Oba Akitoye and Oba Kosoko in and around
1841-1851, to each successding holder of the office of
Chief
17
(201
8) LP
ELR-43
683(
CA)
Sasore of Lagos as the custodian of the family
property and treasures to the present Chief Sasore of
Lagos, the 3rd Plaintiff herein."
In brief, the case presented in these avernments is that the
Appellants' forebearer; Chief Sasore-Abapo had "lived in
exile in "Langbasa" and also "lived and farmed at Ijoyi and
maintained a Chieftaincy house known as an "Igu" (Palace)
at Langbasa village", in the 19th Century, "due to his
service to OBA KOSOKO of Lagos in the period 1841-1851
and through the several wars and migrations that
followed."
Apparently, the land claimed by the Appellants, from the
avernments in paragraphs 3 and 7 above, is situate and
lying at Ijoyi, where their forbearer lived and farmed.
It can easily be observed that the claim is essentially based
on traditional history of first settlement by the Appellants'
ancestor or forbearer; Chief Shasore-Abapo and it is for
title to the land in question,
The law is firmly settled over the years now, that in
pleading traditional history in a claim for declaration of
title to land, the plaintiff or claimant has a duty and so is
expected to narrate the genealogical tree from the original
18
(201
8) LP
ELR-43
683(
CA)
owner, the ancestor in generations appurtenant to him,
down to the plaintiff/claimant. Put another way, the plaintiff
is required to plead who founded the land he claims, the
manner in which it was founded, and the circumstances
leading to it; e.g., first settlement or acquisition by
conquest, and the successive Persons to whom the land
devolved from the founder, through an unbroken chain in
such a way that there is no gap which is not or cannot be
explained. See Akunyili v. Ejidike (supra); Nneji v.
Chukwu (1996) 10 NWLR (478) 265; Anabaronye v.
Nwakaihe (1997) 9 NWLR (482) 374; Igbojimadu v.
Ibeabuchi (1998) 1 NWLR (533) 179; Dike v.
Okoloedo (1999) 10 NWLR (623) 359; Odi v. Iyala
(2004) 8 NWLR (875) 283; Irawo v. Adedokun (2005)
1 NWLR (906) 199; Alikor v. Ogwo (2010) 5 NWLR
(1187) 281.
The law is also very well known that title to a piece or
parcel of land can be proved by anyone of five ways,
including traditional history evidence. The ways are: -
(a) traditional history evidence - Ezenwa v. Agu (2004) 3
NWLR (861) 431 @ 456; Ezeakabekwe v. Emenike
(1998) 62 LRCN, 4855;
(b) documents of title - Nnabuife v. Nwigwe (2001) 9
NWLR (719) 710;
19
(201
8) LP
ELR-43
683(
CA)
Alli v. Alesinloye (2000) 6 NWLR (660) 117; Adeniran
v. Alao (1992) 2 NWLR (223) 350;
(c) by various acts of ownership, numerous and positive and
extending over a length of time as to warrant the inference
of Ownership-Okafor v. Idigo (1984) 1 SCNLR, 481;
Ebevuhe v. Ukpakara (1996) 7 NWLR (460) 254.
(d) by acts of long possession and enjoyment of the land
under Section 35 of the Evidence Act, 2011 (same
provisions as in previous Acts). See Agbara v. Amara
(1995) 7 NWLR (410) 712 @ 734; Atanda v. Ajani
(1989) 3 NWLR (111) 511.
(e) by proof of possession of adjacent land in circumstances
which render it probable that the owner of such land would
in addition, be the owner of the land in dispute. Piaro v.
Tenalo (1976) 12 SC, 31; Nwosu v. Udeala (1990) 1
NWLR (125) 188; Oladipupo v. Olaniyan (2000) 1
NWLR (624) 556.
In addition, a claimant for declaration of the title to land is
to succeed in such a claim, on the merit and strength of his
own case and not on the weakness of the defendant's
defence or case, but can rely on defendant's evidence
which support his own case, Clay Ind. Nig. Ltd v. Aina
(1997) 8 NWLR (516) 208; Dike v. Okoloedo
20
(201
8) LP
ELR-43
683(
CA)
(supra); Oyedeji v. Oyeyemi (2008) 6 NWLR (1244)
542.
The law is also that a party who pleads a root of title by any
of the established ways, but failed to prove same, cannot
turn round at the trial to seek or claim to rely on another
root not pleaded by him Nnadozie v. Mbagwu (2008) 3
NWLR (1074) 363; Owhonda v. Ekpechi (2003) 17
NWLR (849) 326; Bello v. Sanda (2012) 1 NWLR
(1281) 219.
Since the initial burden of proof of the claim by the
Appellants was on them, as Plaintiffs/Claimants before the
High Court, and the claim is predicated on traditional
history of first settlement by their forbearer, the initial
question that arises is whether they satisfied the basic
requirement of pleading, in addition to name of the first
settler/founder, how the first settlement was made and the
devolution of the land in dispute, through an unbroken
chain of succession, from the founder to the Plaintiffs.
The pleadings in paragraphs 5, 7 and 8 of the Appellants'
Amended Statement of Claim, set out earlier, are to the
effect that their forbearer, first lived and farmed at Ijoyi
and maintained an "Iga" at Langbasa Village and then,
second; he "lived in exile in Langbasa and
21
(201
8) LP
ELR-43
683(
CA)
sustained himself with crop of farm at Ijoyi the landed
property in dispute."
The aggregate of the facts in the paragraphs do not
positively assert that the Appellants' forbearer; Chief
Shasore-Abako, was the first settler at or that he founded
Ijoyi where he lived and farmed in the 19th Century. As can
easily be observed, in paragraph 7, Chief Shasore-Abapo
was said to have "lived in exile in Langbasa and sustained
himself with the crop of farm at Ijoyi, the landed property
in dispute, due to his service to OBA KOSOKO of Lagos in
the period 1841-1851." Neither of the avernments in the
two (2) paragraphs (5 and 7) of the Appellants' pleadings
contain the fact of first settlement by Chief Shasore-Abapo,
at Ijoyi, where the land claimed by the Appellants. is
situate, admittedly. The fact of living and farming at Ijoyi
by Chief Shasore-Abako pleaded in the avernments is not
the same and falls far short of and does not constitute a
positive assertion that he founded Ijoyi or was the first
settler by deforestation. The avernment in paragraph 3 to
the effect that the Appellants are "the only true and bona
fide original owners of... (the landed property in
22
(201
8) LP
ELR-43
683(
CA)
dispute)" does not aid and avail them on how they became
the only true and original owners without the fact of how
they came about original ownership. In the circumstances,
the Appellants did not satisfy the basic requirement of
pleading the facts of first settlement by their forbearer on
the land in dispute, upon which their claims are predicated.
First settlement presupposes deforestation of virgin land
where no other persons had been before and which is
under no control or authority of any other persons or
community. However, first settlement would include
deforestation of a virgin land and conquest of the previous
persons or community on a land, and then settling on the
land. Since under customary and traditional law, conquest
is one of the modes or ways of acquiring ownership/title to
land, satisfactory proof by traditional evidence of such
conquest, would ground ownership/title to the land in
question. Ajiboye v. Ishola (2006) 13 NWLR (998) 628;
Mogaji v. Cadbury Nig. Ltd.
In the absence of clear and positive avernments of fact of
first settlement by their forbearer or that he in fact founded
or deforested the land in dispute as a virgin land,
23
(201
8) LP
ELR-43
683(
CA)
the foundation of the claims by the Appellants to be the
only true and bona fide original owners of the land, is
absent from their pleadings. Where a plaintiff predicates
his claim for a declaration of title on traditional history, it
would not be sufficient for him to merely plead or barely
assert that he and his predecessors in title had owned and
possessed the land in dispute since a particular period or
from time beyond memory. The issue of original ownership
of land by traditional evidence is one of hard historical facts
and a claimant has a duty to plead specific and necessary
facts and materials to sustain the title based thereon which
must be proved as required by the law. Title to land based
or predicated on traditional history evidence cannot be
established or proved by bare assertions or general
sweeping statements of the claimant. See Olokunlade v.
Samuel (2011) 17 NWLR (1276) 290. The basis of the
claim by the Appellants' on the ground of first settlement
on the land in dispute by their forbearer, relying on fact of
traditional history therefore fails in these circumstances.
It is correct, as shown in the Appellants' brief that PW4; the
24
(201
8) LP
ELR-43
683(
CA)
Shasore of Lagos and head of the Shasore Chieftaincy
Family gave evidence at page 270 of the Record of Appeal
to the effect that:
"SAHASORE ABAKO was one of the chiefs who went
on exile with Kosoko to Epe. On his way to Lagos, he
made a detour to Badore in ETTI-OSA Local
Government Chief SHASORE and few other chiefs
were with him. As Kosoko settled in BADORE,
SHASORE settled in Langbasa. It was in the process
of this settling at Langbasa that he discover - IJOYI -
which was his own family land at that time. The
House we built at Langbasa is now part of the
historical ... Lagos State Government."
The clear import of this piece of evidence is that it was
"Chief SHASORE ABARO" who discovered and was the first
settler at Ijoyi which was his own family land at that time.
Under cross examination by the 2nd and 3rd Defendants,
PW4 maintained at Page 272 of the Record of Appeal, that:-
"My family lived and farmed IJOYI - the site of the
present suit."
However, the above evidence is not supported by and did
not go to support any pleadings by the Appellants that in
fact and deed, Chief Shasore Abako (or Abaro); their
forebearer, discovered, was the
25
(201
8) LP
ELR-43
683(
CA)
first settler at or founded Ijoyi. The law is trite that
evidence not supported by pleadings of a party goes to no
issue and of no probative value or worth in a case even if
unchallenged and uncontroverted. Adimora v. Ajufo
(1988) 6 SCNJ, 18; Awoyegbe v. Ogbeide (1988) 1
NWLR (73) 695; Adejumo v. Ayantegbe (1989) 3
NWLR (110) 417; Egbunike v. ACB Ltd (1995) 2
NWLR (375) 34; SPDCN v. Ambah (1999) 2 SCNJ, 152.
The evidence of Lateef Adesina Dosunmu, PW5, at page
275 of the Record of Appeal that Shasore Abako settled at
Ijoyi which is about 2 or 3 miles from Langbasa, along
Badore Road, when Kosoko was driven out of Lagos, goes
to the Appellants' pleadings in paragraphs 5 and 7 of the
Amended statement of Claim of mere settlement on the
land in dispute by Chief Shasore-Abako, but not as a
founder, first settler or a Person who discovered it. As
pointed out earlier, by the pleading in paragraph 7, Chief
Shasore-Abako had lived in exile in Langbasa and sustained
himself with crops from farm at Ijoyi, the land in dispute,
due to his service to Oba Kosoko of Lagos in the period
1841-1851.
The claims by the Appellants, of being in possession of and
26
(201
8) LP
ELR-43
683(
CA)
exercising rights of ownership of the land in dispute since
the settlement of Chief Shasore-Abako, are clearly
predicated; completely and entirely, on their claim of title
and ownership by first settlement, discovery or founding
one of the modes or ways of acquiring title to land under
customary law. The claim that the Appellants are the true
and bona fide original owners of the land is based on the
claim of first settlement, discovery or founding by Chief
Shasore-Abako. Since their claim to possession of and
exercise of rights of ownership of the land in dispute are
predicated on the failed claim of first settlement, the
Appellants cannot turn round to rely on the alleged
possession or exercise of the acts of ownership to claim
title to the same piece of land as there would be no
foundation for such acts of possession and ownership.
In the case of Fasoro v. Beyioku (1988) 2 NWLR (1976)
263, the Supreme Court has stated the law that -
"One cannot relay talk of facts of ownership without
first establishing that ownership. Where a party's root
of title is pleaded as say - a grant, or a sale or
conquest, etc, that root has to be established first,
and
27
(201
8) LP
ELR-43
683(
CA)
any consequential acts following therefrom can
properly qualify as acts of ownership. In other words,
acts of ownership are done because of, and in
Pursuance to the ownership. Ownership forms the
quo warranto of these acts as it gives legality to acts
which would have otherwise been acts of trespass."
The law, as stated earlier, is that a claimant who pleads
traditional history as the root of his title to a piece of land,
but fails to prove the root by that means, cannot turn round
to rely on acts of ownership and possession to prove his
title to the land in question. Oyadare v. Keji (2005) 7
NWLR (925) 571; Orunengimo v. Egebe (2007) 15
NWLR (1058) 630; Alikor v. Ogwo (2010) 5 NWLR
(1187) 281; Anukam v. Anukam (2008) 5 NWLR
(1081) 455. The trial Court was on the firm terrain of the
law when it stated at page 17 of its judgement (Page 606 of
the Record of Appeal) that: -
"Without doubt where a party pleads and relies on a
particular mode of acquisition of his root of title, he
is under a duty to prove such mode of acquisition to
the satisfaction of the trial Court before his claim of
title can succeed. Where, however the radical title is
not proved,
28
(201
8) LP
ELR-43
683(
CA)
it is long settled that it is not permissible to
substitute a pleaded particular root of title that has
failed with other matters such as acts of possession,
numerous and positive to warrant the inferences of
the ownership not pleaded as root of title. See: -
1. Chief Odofin vs. Isaac Ayo-Ola (1984) 11 S.C. 72 at