How the Act of Vesting Legal Title in Respect of Land in a Person Can Be Deduced

CASE TITLE: OSOKOYA & ORS V. OLOWOSARE & ORS (2025) LPELR-80565(CA)

JUDGMENT DATE:  3RD FEBRUARY, 2025

PRACTICE AREA: LAND LAW

LEAD JUDGMENT: HADIZA RABIU SHAGARI, J.C.A.

SUMMARY OF JUDGMENT:

INTRODUCTION:

This appeal borders on land law.

FACTS:

This appeal is against the judgment of the High Court of Ondo State, Akure Judicial Division herein referred to as the “trial court,” delivered on 21st January 2021 by Hon. Justice Aderemi Adegoroye.

The Appellant (who was the Claimant at the trial Court) commenced this action by writ of summons on 12th November 2018 against the 1st–4th respondents, wherein they sought a declaration that they are the people entitled to the ownership and statutory right of occupancy of the farmland of the late Pa Williams Origunloye, lying and being at Onitorun Comp, Oda, via Akure, Akure South Local Government Area, Ondo State. The Appellants are customary successors-in-title to the estate of one Late Pa Williams Origunloye, the patriarch of the Origunloye family in Onitorun Camp, Oda, Akure South Local Government Area, Ondo State. Pa Williams Origunloye enjoyed a close relationship with the patriarch of the Respondents, one Pa Zacheaus Olowosare (a.k.a. Pa Sakiu Aina Olowosare). During their lifetime, both patriarchs carried on several activities in common, such as erecting their buildings in close proximity and sharing the same perimeter fence. Both patriarchs bequeathed their cordial relationship to their children. The strength of this bond of friendship between the families of the Claimants (now Appellants) and the Defendants (now Respondents) was further manifested when the 1st Respondent was appointed to distribute the estate of the Late Pa Williams Origunloye among his children upon his death. 1st Respondent carried out the task and distributed the property of the late Williams Origunloye to his children. The farmland in dispute is the action that gave rise to the instant appeal is part of the estate of the late Pa Williams Origunioye.

The 1st Respondent acting in collusion with the 2nd-4th Respondents, trespassed on the land intending to sell it to unsuspecting members of the public. The failure of the Respondents to heed timely and rapid warnings by the Appellant compelled the Appellants to institute the suit from which this appeal emanated.

The Appellants in proof of their case, called 3 witnesses, CW1, CW2, and CW3, who adopted their respective written addresses and were subsequently cross-examined by the Respondents’ counsel, while the Respondents equally called 5 witnesses, DW1, DW2, DW3, DW4, and DW5, in support of their case.

The trial Court after trial, entered judgment in favour of the Respondents on the counterclaim and dismissed the Appellants’ claim. The Appellants, dissatisfied with the decision of the trial Court, filed the instant appeal.

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION:

The Court determined the appeal on the following issues, thus:

i. Having regard to the state of pleading, the quality of the evidence adduced by the Appellants at the trial and the state of law, whether the learned trial Judge was not in error when he dismissed the Appellants’ case.

a. The lower Court’s shutting its eyes to clear and unequivocal evidence placed before it and failure to properly evaluate evidence.

b. The lower Court’s misconception of the case of the Appellants.

c. The lower Court taking extraneous matter into consideration in its judgment.

d. Failure of the lower Court to apply the rule in KOJO II VS BONSIE.

ii. Whether the lower Court was not wrong in holding that failure to join Ojo Micheal Origunloye (a deceased person) in the suit materially affected the case of the Appellants.

iii. Having regard to the pleading in the Respondents’ counterclaim and the quality of the evidence led by the Respondent in support of their counterclaim, whether the learned trial Judge was not wrong in upholding the counter claim of the Respondents.

DECISION/HELD:

In the final analysis, the appeal was dismissed.

RATIOS:

• EVIDENCE- PROOF OF TITLE TO LAND: Ways of proving title/ownership of land/house
• EVIDENCE- TRADITIONAL EVIDENCE/HISTORY: Duty of a party relying on traditional history
• EVIDENCE- BURDEN OF PROOF/ONUS OF PROOF: Whether a plaintiff can rely on the weakness of the case of the defendant to prove his own case in an action for declaration of title
• EVIDENCE- DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE: Whether documentary evidence speaks for itself
• EVIDENCE- TRADITIONAL EVIDENCE/HISTORY: Application of the rule in Kojo v. Bonsie
• EVIDENCE- BURDEN OF PROOF/ONUS OF PROOF: Whether he who asserts must prove
• LAND LAW- DECLARATION OF TITLE TO LAND: Duty of a claimant/plaintiff in an action for declaration of title to land
• LAND LAW- TITLE TO LAND: How the act of vesting legal title in respect of land in a person can be deduced
• LAND LAW- DECLARATION OF TITLE TO LAND: Whether the fact that a person acquired rights of possession over parts of a piece of land in dispute will affect the right of any other person to seek a declaration of title to the whole piece of land
• LAND LAW- DECLARATION OF TITLE TO LAND: Whether dismissal of the claim of a plaintiff for declaration of title to land will automatically vest title in the defendant

To read the full judgment or similar judgments, subscribe to Prime or Primsol