AKINLOYE & ANOR. V. EYILOLA & ORS.

• Pages: 16-19

16



NIGERIAN SUPREME COURT CASES

[1967] N.S.C.C.

AKINLOYE & ANOR. V. EYILOLA & ORS.

5

A.M. AKINLOYE & ANOTHER

V

BELLO EYIYOLA & OTHERS

SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA

ADEMOLA,



C.J.N.

COKER,



J.S.C.

LEWIS,



J.S.C.

26th January, 1967

APPELLANTS

RESPONDENTS

SUIT NO. SC 136/1965

10

15

Land Law - Native Law and Custom - Practice and Procedure - Appeals

Declaration of title - Possession of Customary tenant not inconsistent with title



of grantor cannot ripen into ownership however long - Yomba customary law



20

- Ownership of land - Prescriptive title unknown - Failure to plead histories

relied upon in evidence - Such evidence not to be allowed without an

amendment of pleadings - Appeal on facts - Powers of appeal court - Appeal

court not W substitute its own views for views of trial court where the latter

evaluated the evidence and appraised facts.



25

ISSUES:

1.

Whether facts not pleaded would be allowed in evidence without amendment

of the pleadings.

2.

Whether the fact of possession by a party is enough to divest a rightful owner



30

of land of the interest.

3.

Whether long possession can possibly ripen into total ownership.

4.

Whether a court of appeal has the power to substitute its own views for that of

trial court.

FACTS:



35

In the High Court, the trial judge found in favour of the Respondents (Plaintiffs)

in an action they brought against the appellants (defendants) for declaration of title

to land. The Court accepted the evidence of the respondents that their ancestors

owned the land and allowed the appellants' ancestors to occupy it as customary



tenants in accordance with Yoruba customary law. The appellants mentioned



40

names and histories of their ancestors in an effort to show that they owned the land,

but the names and histories were not pleaded in their statement of defence.

On appeal to the Supreme Court, it was contended for the appellants that the

trial judge misconceived the whole case as he did not resolve the issues postu-



lated by the defendants' case especially having regard to the undisputed fact that



45

the second defendant and his forebears had always been in actual physical pos-

session of land.

HELD:

1.

The defendants did not plead the names or the histories of the several ancestors



mentioned by them or on their behalf in evidence. Such evidence should not



50

have been allowed without an amendment of the pleadings.