ADEKUNLE V. AYINKE

• Pages: 251-253

ADEKUNLE V. AYINKE



251

ADEKUNLE V. AYINKE

5

LAYIWOLA M. ADEKUNLE

V

10 BINTU AYINKE

SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA

BRETT,



J.S.C.

COKER,



J.S.C.

15



MADARI KAN,



J.S.C.

17th November, 1967

APPELLANT

RESPONDENT

SUIT NO. SC 18/1967

Civil Action - Practice and Procedure - Claim for declaration of title - Acts of

possession as proof of ownership - Plaintiffs onus to prove continuous and

20





unchallenged acts of possession over sufficient period - Whether modified by

section 145, Evidence Act.

ISSUES:

1.

In what circumstances will acts of possession be regarded as acts of

25



ownership?

2.

Whether section 145, of the Evidence Act modifies the well known rule as to

onus of proof on a person relying on circumstantial evidence in support of his

claim to a declaration of title to land.

FACTS:

30





The plaintiff (respondent) brought an action in the High Court seeking a dec-

laration of title as owner in fee simple to a piece of land in Mushin. She claimed

no other relief. The defendant (appellant) had entered on and built on the land in

1960.

The plaintiff's case was that in 1929 one Labinjoh sold the land in dispute to

35





Ajayi in fee simple. She claimed further that in 1945 Ajayi's children sold to Bamg-

baiye whose children in turn sold to the plaintiff in 1957 and gave her a convey-

ance in 1961. In support of her claim for declaration of title she relied on

documentary evidence and on acts of possession.

The defendant admitted entering on and building on the land in 1960 but

40





claimed that he did so

bona fide

having bought the land in 1959 after searching

and finding no registered instrument affecting it and that he found no signs of any

other occupier.

The plaintiff's purported paper title was proved valueless and there was no evi-

dence of acts of possession by her predecessors in title before 1945. The acts of

45



possession after that date were not proved to be continuous and were, according

to her own witness, repeatedly challenged by removal of signboards. The trial

judge nevertheless accepted the evidence for the plaintiff and allowed her claim.

On appeal:

HELD:

SO





Acts of possession may also be regarded as acts of ownership if the circum-

stances warrant an inference of ownership but section 145 of the Evidence Act

does not modify the well-known rule that a person relying on circumstantial evi-

dence in support of a claim for declaration of title to land must prove acts of owner-

ship extending over a sufficient length of time, numerous and positive enough to