Whether Publication in Official Gazette Satisfies The Statutory Mode of Service of Notice of Revocation of Right of Occupancy

CASE TITLE: EDWARD & ANOR V. OKETOKUN & ORS (2025) LPELR-82633(CA)

JUDGMENT DATE: 4TH DECEMBER, 2025

PRACTICE AREA: LAND LAW

LEAD JUDGMENT: EBIOWEI TOBI, J.C.A.

SUMMARY OF JUDGMENT:

INTRODUCTION:

This appeal borders on Declaration of Title to Land.

FACTS:

The Appellant’s were the Claimants in the trial Court in the suit filed on 4/8/2011 registered as Suit No: I/717/2011 wherein he made the following claim-

(i) A perpetual injunction restraining the Defendants, their agents or privies from trespassing or further trespassing on the Claimants’ land situate and being at Aba-Ode Village, off Olorunda Aba Road, Ibadan in Lagelu Local Government of Oyo State containing an area approximately 23102.140 square metres (0.231 hectares) covered by Survey Plan No. OY/249/2004/002 covered by Certificate of Statutory Right of Occupancy dated 8th day of February, 2005 by No. 2 page 2 Volume 3455 of the Oyo State Land Registry, Ibadan.

(ii) N100,000.00 damages for unlawful encroachment and trespass on the piece or parcel of land situate and being at Aba-Ode Road, Ibadan in Lagelu Local Government, Oyo State containing an area approximately 23102.140 square metres (0.231 hectares) covered by Survey Plan No. OY/249/2004/002 covered by Certificate of Statutory Right of Occupancy dated 8th day of February, 2005 by No. 2 page 2 Volume 3455 of the Oyo State Land Registry, Ibadan.

The claimant’s case was that they brought the land in dispute from the Oketokun family represented by Alhaji Kareem Oketokun and one Chief Raimi Sule Gbadamosi on 4/5/1977 which is evidenced by Exhibit D. The root of title of the Claimants vendor was Exhibits A, B & C. The trial Court after listening to all the witnesses and review the evidence before it dismissed it. After considering the evidence before it and evaluating same, the trial Court came to the conclusion that Exhibits A, B, C & D could not be relied on as the basis of granting the claim of the claimant as they are inconsistent with the claim and the evidence before the Court.

The trial Court dismissed the case. Dissatisfied, the appellant filed the instant appeal.

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION:

The Court determined the appeal on these issues:

i. Whether the pictorial evidence of Appellants’ possession of the land in dispute admitted as Exhibit G and Evidence of CW3 were not wrongly expunged and discountenanced by the trial Judge respectively, when Appellants’ possession of the land in dispute was not challenged by the Respondents?

ii. Whether in view of the advertisement made in the Nigerian Tribune of 29/10/2004 admitted as Exhibit F, the Respondent are not deemed to have constructive notice of the grant of Certificate of Occupancy dated the 8th day of February, 2005 and registered as No. 2 page 2 Volume 3455 of the Oyo State Land Registry, Ibadan granted to the Appellant by the Oyo State Government?

iii. Whether in view of the Appellants’ registered title; long and peaceful possession of the disputed land, the 3rd to 5th Respondents are not caught up by the doctrine of laches and acquiescence?

iv. Whether the trial Judge was right to grant the reliefs not sought for by the Respondents by nullifying the Certificate of Occupancy dated the 8th day of February, 2005 and registered as No. 2 Volume 3455 of the Oyo State Land Registry, Ibadan granted to the Appellants by the Oyo State Government and further held conclusively that the Land in dispute belongs to 3rd – 5th Respondents’ family?

v. Whether trial Judge did not misdirect himself when he dismissed the Appellants’ suit for lack of title on the basis of Exhibits A, B, C and D when same were tendered and admitted as evidence of purchase?

vi. Whether in view of paragraphs 4 – 8 of the Further Consequential Amended Statement of Claim dated 2nd November, 2018, the Appellants raised new issue in paragraph 10 of the Amended Reply to the 3th – 5th Respondents’ Statement of Defence dated the 9th February, 2016 but filed on 9th February, 2017?

DECISION/HELD:

In the final analysis, the appeal was allowed.

RATIOS:          

●      EQUITABLE DEFENCES- DEFENCES OF LACHES AND ACQUIESCENCE: Nature of equitable defences of laches and acquiescence

●      LAND LAW- IDENTITY OF LAND: Duty of a plaintiff/claimant to establish the identity/area of land in dispute

●      LAND LAW- POSSESSION OF LAND: Whether a person in possession can maintain an action against anyone except a person having a better title to the land

●      LAND LAW- REVOCATION OF RIGHT OF OCCUPANCY: Whether publication in official gazette satisfies the statutory mode of service of notice of revocation of right of occupancy      

●      LAND LAW- ACQUISITION OF LAND: Whether publication of a fact in an official gazette constitutes a notice to the whole world

●      LAND LAW- CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY: Whether certificate of occupancy is conclusive evidence of title  

●      LAND LAW- IDENTITY OF LAND: Whether issue of identity of land can arise where the parties know the land in dispute

●      LAND LAW- DECLARATION OF TITLE TO LAND: Whether failure of the plaintiff to prove his claim for declaration of title to land will automatically vest title in the defendant who did not file a counter-claim     

●      LAND LAW- COMPETING INTERESTS IN LAND: Position of law when there is a dispute of land between two parties with competing interest

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