AJADI V. OLAREWAJU

• Pages: 334-339

AJADI V. OLAREWAJU



334

Appeal dismissed

AJADI V. OLAREWAJU



5

MURANA AJADI



APPELLANT

V



10

MADAM DORCAS OLAREWAJU



RESPONDENT

SUIT NO. SC 50/1967

SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA

ADEMOLA,



C.J.N.

LEWIS,



J.S.C.



15

FATAI-WILLIAMS, J.S.C.

14th November, 1969.

Land Law - Declaration of Title - Appeal Court can evaluate evidence given in

lower court - Mere statement that sale of Land under Customary Law not



20

enough in itself to prove sale - Slight evidence of possession enough in respect

of uncultivated land, wizen other side had no title, to prove trespass.

ISSUES:

1.

Does an Appeal Court have jurisdiction to evaluate evidence taken during a trial



25

in a lower court?

2.

What are the requirements in order to transfer an absolute title to land under

Customary Law?

3.

Whether it is necessary to enclose land or cultivate it in order to establish

possession.



30

FACTS:

In the Customary Court, the plaintiff claimed a declaration of title, damages for

trespass, and an injunction to restrain the defendant from further acts of trespass.

The claim was dismissed. The plaintiff appealed to the High Court, which set aside

the order of the Customary Court, allowing the appeal. The defendant appealed



35

to the Supreme Court contending that an appeal court should not assess facts

found in the trial court, and that the case be sent for retrial.

HELD:

1.

It is true that the Appeal Court is always reluctant to differ from a trial Judge on

a finding of fact but distinction must be drawn between finding of a fact based



40

on the credibility of witness and findings based on evaluation of evidence which

has been accepted. In the latter case a Court of Appeal is in as good a position

to evaluate the evidence as the Court of trial, though it will, of course, give

weight to the opinion of the trial Judge.

2.

In order to trans'er an absolute title to land under native law and custom, it is



45

necessary that such a sale should be concluded in the presence of witnesses,

who saw the actual handing over' of the property.

3.

As there was no evidence that the admitted sale of portions of the land by the

plaintiff/respondent was "carried out in the proper way" either by the handing

over of the property in the presence of witnesses or by using non customary



50

formalities such as a deed of conveyance, the sale had not been proved and

the Acting Chief Justice was right to have discountenanced it. That being the

case the area in dispute in dispute was easily identifiable from the Plan (Exh.

13') and was therefore "clear and definite".