AGBOOLA V. ABIMBOLA

• Pages: 263-270

AGBOOLA V. ABIMBOLA



263

matter back for rehearing, but in view of our decision on laches which disposes

of the appeal such action does not, as we have stated arise.

In the result therefore we think that the appellants are entitled to succeed on the

ground of appeal alleging laches, and we accordingly allow the appeal and set

5





aside the judgment, including the orders as to costs, of Caxton-Martins, J., and

order that the plaintiff's claim in Surat No. LD/468/65 be dismissed with costs in this

court to the second defendant of 36 guineas and in the High Court to the second

defendant of 40 guineas.

Appeal dismissed.

AGBOOLA V. ABIMBOLA

AKANO FASHINA AGBOOLA



APPELLANT

V

ANGELINA ABIMBOLA



RESPONDENT



20



SUIT NO. SC 366/1967

SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA

COKER,



J.S.C.

LEWIS,



J.S.C.

FATAI-WILLIAMS, J.S.C.



25



4th July, 1969.

Land Law - Registration of title under S.8 of Cap. 181 - English Statutes of

Limitation do not apply to Native Law and Custom - Long possession cannot

found claim in title against trace owner - Estoppel in pais of deed unless



30



plea of non est facture.

ISSUE:

1.

Whether it is necessary in order to establish title to land, to trace the root of the

title down to the original owners.

35

FACTS:

The appellant wanted to register his title to freehold property but this was re-

fused as another person had also lodged an application to register the same land.

His appeal to the High Court was dismissed. He appealed to the Supreme Court.

HELD:



40



1. It is common ground that the land originally belonged to the Oloto Chieftaincy

family. Therefore in order to establish title to the land a party must trace title to

the family. On the evidence before the Registrar the appellant did so clearly

by the conveyance Exhibit "D" executed in his favour by the Oloto Chieftaincy

Family. On the other hand, the respondent (or her predecessors-in-title) had



45



no conveyance from the Oloto Chieftaincy family and except for the purchase

receipt Exhibit "B" they had no documents whatsoever evidencing any transfer

to them or her of the absolute interests of the Oloto Chieftaincy Family.

2.

The Registrar disqualified the appellant from obtaining the obvious advantages

of a direct conveyance from the accepted owners on the grounds that (a) the



50



English statutes of Limitation, (b) Long possession of the respondent as her

predecessors-in-title, and (c) the extinction of the reversionary rights of the

Oloto Chieftaincy Family. All these grounds of disqualification employed

against the appellant should not have been so regarded. The Registrar of Titles

10

15