Whether the Description of Land in Dispute by Different Names Puts Identity of the Land in Issue

CASE TITLE:  DADA & ORS v. PASOKU & ORS (2025) LPELR-82468(CA)

JUDGMENT DATE: 4TH NOVEMBER, 2025

PRACTICE AREA: LAND LAW

LEAD JUDGMENT: BIOBELE ABRAHAM GEORGEWILL, J.C.A.

SUMMARY OF JUDGMENT:

INTRODUCTION:

This appeal borders on Land Law.

FACTS:

This is an appeal against the judgment of the High Court of Ogun State, Sagamu Division, Coram: Tajudeen A. Okunsokan J, delivered on 15/7/2020.

The Respondents as Claimants in the trial Court, claimed the following against the Appellant, amongst others:

1. A Declaration that Sofuyi Pasoku Family as represented by the Claimants are the persons entitled to the grant of Customary Right of Occupancy over the land in dispute lying. being and situate at Sofuyi Pasoku Family land, Itamito/Amuteku Village, along Simawal/Ajebo Road, Makun, Sagamu Local Government Area, Ogun State which land shares boundary with Ewuoloye/Ajagan Land, Ajebg Land, Ewu Ogun Land, lleyo Land and lgboalafon Land and further described and delineated as area A, B and C in the Claimants’ Survey Plan No. OG/152/96/057 dated 12-06-96 prepared by Surveyor Femi Falade, Registered Surveyor and measuring approximately 903316,408 square meters (225.04 acres) (Area A), 267678.067 square meters (66:69 acres) (Area B) and 27379.040 square meters (6.82 acres) (Area C) respectively.

2. An Order of this Court forfeiting the customary tenancy granted in favor of the Defendants’ progenitors by the Claimants’ family over the land in dispute lying. being and situate at Sofuyi Pasoku Family land, Itamito/Amuteku Village. along Simawal/Ajebo Road, Makun, Sagamu Local Government Area, Ogun State which land shares boundary with Ewuoloye/Ajagan Land, Ajebo Land, Ewu Ogun Land, lleyo Land and lgboalafon Land and further described and delineated as area A,B and C in the Claimants’ Survey Plan No. OG/152/96/057 dated 12-06-96 prepared by Surveyor Femi Falade, Registered Surveyor and measuring approximately 903316.408 square meters (225.04 acres) (Area A), 267678.067 square meters (66.69 acres) (Area B) and 27379. 040 square meters (6.82 acres) (Area C) respectively.

The Respondents relied on evidence of traditional history of title to the land in dispute traced to their progenitor. They insisted that the Appellants were their customary tenants. The Appellants also relied on evidence of traditional history of title to the land in dispute. They insisted that they were customary owners of the land in dispute which devolved on them and the other members of Dada Osinowo Family as their inheritance from their ancestors.

The trial Court delivered judgment in favour of the Respondent. The Appellant dissatisfied with the decision, filed this appeal.

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION:

The Court determined the appeal on the following issues:

1. Whether considering the lower Court discarding of Exhibit A and the Respondents failure to give a definite size, dimension and boundaries of the land in dispute, they are entitled to the reliefs granted in their favor by the lower Court?

2. Whether the lower Court was right to have raised the issue of customary tenancy and invoking Section 167(d) of the Evidence Act 2011 suo motu which was not address by the parties during trial and which formed the basis for granting judgment in favor of the Respondents to the disadvantage of the Appellants?

DECISION/HELD:

In the final analysis, the appeal was dismissed.

RATIOS:

• ACTION- PLEADINGS: Whether parties and the Court are bound by pleadings filed and exchanged by the parties
• COURT- RAISING ISSUE(S) SUO MOTU: Whether the Court must call parties to address it on issues raised suo motu; effect of failure to do so
• CUSTOMARY LAW- CUSTOMARY TENANCY: Nature of a customary tenancy and acts upon which a customary tenancy may be forfeited
• EVIDENCE- PROOF OF TITLE TO LAND: Ways of proving title to land in an action for declaration of title; whether a claimant/plaintiff needs to prove all the five ways
• EVIDENCE- TRADITIONAL EVIDENCE/HISTORY: Whether evidence of traditional history alone is sufficient to support a claim of title to land
• LAND LAW- IDENTITY OF LAND: Principles of law as regards proper description/identification of the land in dispute
• LAND LAW- IDENTITY OF LAND: Duty on a plaintiff/claimant to establish the identity of land in dispute; instance(s) in which such proof will/will not be required
• LAND LAW- IDENTITY OF LAND: Whether the description of land in dispute by different names or pleading different boundary men puts identity of land in issue
• LAND LAW- IDENTITY OF LAND: Whether identity of land in dispute can be put in issue in address of counsel

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