ADEDOJA & ORS V. ADEBOWALE & ANOR.

• Pages: 208-212

208



NIGERIAN SUPREME COURT CASES

[1969] N.S.C.C.

"Possession may under section 145 of the Evidence Act give a presumption of

ownership, but it does not do more and cannot stand when another proves a

good title".

For the above reasons the order of non-suit cannot be allowed to stand. The



5

appeal is allowed and the judgment of the learned trial Judge in Suit No.

LD/36/1965, including the order as to costs, is hereby set aside. Since his prede-

cessors' claim for possession, damages for trespass, and for an injunction can-

not succeed. We therefore order as follows:-

10

(a)

that the respondent's case be dismissed and this shall be the order of the

Court; and

(b)

that the appellant be awarded costs in the court below assessed at 30 gui-

neas and in this court at 42 guineas.

Appeal allowed.

ADEDOJA & ORS V. ADEBOWALE & ANOR.

1.

ABINBADE ADEDOJA

2.

YESUFU OYELAKIN

3.

SANUSI ADERINOYE

4.

YESUFU OLADEJO

APPELLANTS

V

1.

SALAMI ADEBOWALE

2.

KARUMU ADEBOWALE

RESPONDENTS

SUIT NO. SC 672/1966

SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA

COKER,



Ag.C.J.N.

LEWIS,



J.S.C.

FATAI-WILLIAMS, J.S.C.

6th June, 1969.

Land Law - Claim for ownership of cocoa farm - Plaintiff and defendant close

blood relations - Family land - Whether divisible - Claim instituted in Customary

Court.

ISSUES:

1.

Whether an appellate court should merely look at the substance of an appeal

from a Native Court, without considerating the form.

2.

Whether the court can grant a declaration of title to family land, to one party to

the exclusion of all others.



45

FACTS:

The plaintiffs instituted this action in a Grade B Customary Court, for owner-

ship of a cocoa farm which they claimed belonged to their father. The court how-

ever found that the plaintiffs and defendants were blood cousins and that the cocoa

farm was owned jointly by both families. The court thus held that the farm was to



50

be divided equally between the two families.

The defendants appealed to the Chief Magistrate Court contending that the

plaintiffs had not asked for a partition. The Magistrate set aside the judgment, and

the plaintiffs appealed to the High Court, who held that the defendants had no right

15

20

25

30

35

40