AGEDEGUDU V. AJENIFUJA & ORS

• Pages: 89-95

AGEDEGUDU V. AJENIFUJA & ORS



69

AGEDEGUDU V. AJENIFUJA & ORS

5

SUNMONU AGEDEGUDU

(for and on behalf of



APPELLANTS

10 ONIGBESA FAMILY)

V

1.

SANNI AJENIFUJA

2.

KASUMU OSHODI

3.

SALAWU ALMARUF



RESPONDENTS

15 4. SHAFARI T. OSHODI

5. RAJI DISU OSHODI

SUIT NO.FSC 413/1961

FEDERAL SUPREME COURT.

BRETT,



F.J.

20



TAYLOR,



F.J.

BAIRAMIAN,



F.J.

5th March, 1963.

Land Law - Claim for declaration of title - Onus on plaintiff to prove his title.

25

Practice and Procedure - Traditional history - Findings of fact opposed to plaintiffs'

version and supporting defendants' - Onus not discharged - Real property.

ISSUE:

30



1. Whether a plaintiff in a claim for declaration of title has discharged the onus of

proving his title where the findings of fact are opposed to his story and in support

of the defendant's.

FACTS:

The plaintiffs claimed a declaration of title and recovery of possession; they al-

35



leged that their ancestor had granted the land to the defendants' ancestor, to hold

as customary tenant, and that until recently the defendants were paying tribute but

stopped and began to grant building leases, for which reason they forfeited their

tenure.

The defendants alleged that it was the Aworis who had made the grant over a

40



hundred years ago and that it was an out-and-out grant to their ancestor for mili-

tary services; and they denied payment of tribute.

From the cross-examination of the plaintiffs it appeared that there were two

families, both Aworis, namely the plaintiffs' Onigbesa family of (solo and the Onig-

besa family of Igbesa, and that it was on a grant by the latter that the defendants

45



relied.

The trial Judge said in his judgment that he could not say which of the two Onig-

besa families had made the grant; he found that no tribute was paid, and that for

over a century the defendants' family and ancestors were in possession and exer-

cising acts of ownership without protest from the plaintiffs' family; he concluded

50



that it was an absolute grant and dismissed the suit.

On appeal the plaintiff argued that there was ample evidence to enable a find-

ing on who the original grantors were; that the judge's failure to make a finding on

that point vitiated the judgment, and that there should be a retrial.