ADENLE (THE ATAOJA OF OSHOGBO) V. OYEGBADE

• Pages: 107-111

ADENLE (THE ATAOJA OF OSHOGBO) V. OYEGBADE



107

regarded as a matter of course that any general costs (as opposed to the costs of

interlocutory proceedings or particJlar issues) which he may have paid in conse-

quence of the order of court below are to be refunded to him without any further

order.

5



Appeal allowed.

ADENLE (THE ATAOJA OF OSHOGBO) V.

10

OYEGBADE

15

SAMUEL ADENLE

(THE ATAOJA OF OSHOGBO)

V.

MICHAEL OYEGBADE

APPELLANT

RESPONDENT

SUIT NO. SC 127/1966

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA

BRETT,



J.S.C.

AJEGBO,



J.S.C.

LEWIS,



J.S.C.

20th March, 1967

Land Law - Declaration of title, - Family land - Long possession by family

member - Improvement of family land by Member - Whether enough to

confer absolute title - Declaration of title - Generally onus on plaintiff - Where

land admittedly family land originally, onus on person asserting exclusive

right - Traditional evidence - Conf7ict of - Approach to assessment - Demeanour

no guide.

ISSUES:

1.

Whether the general principle of the law that in a claim for declaration of title

to land the onus lies on the plaintiff to succeed on the strength of his own

case is still applicable where the dispute involves land which is accepted by

both sides as being originally family land.

2.

Whether in a conflict of traditional history, the demeanour of witnesses is a

sufficient guide to the truth.

3.

Whether improvements of family land by a member of the family can cause that

property to cease to be family property.

4.

Whether proof of such improvements relieves a defendant of the onus of

proving exclusive possession of the property.

FACTS:

The appellant who was the plaintiff in the Court below sued the respondent and

another person for a declaration that a piece of land was the property of Laro

Family. Both sides were members of Laro Family, the plaintiff being the Head of

the Family.

It was common ground between the parties that the land in dispute originally

belonged to the Laro Family, and that the defendant had been in occupation of it

since 1934, having continued the possession of his father, Oyegbade. The sole

question for determination by the Court was whether Oyegbade had been granted

the land outright or whether he had been given a limited grant of possession for

farming purposes.