ALATISHE V. SANYAOLU

• Pages: 294-296

294



NIGERIAN SUPREME COURT CASES

[1964] N.S.C.C.

We wish, however, to draw attention to the evidence of the appellant's mental

history. There is nothing to show that the appellant has been under medical ob-

servation and it may be that medical examination will disclose a condition which

ought to be brought to the attention of the Governor.

It is ordered that the appeal of Clement lwuanyanwu from the judgement of the



5

High Court at Aba, dated the 14th of September, 1964, in case No. A/170/1964

be dismissed.

Appeal dismissed.

10

ALATISHE V. SANYAOLU

15

M.A. ALATISHE



APPELLANT/RESPONDENT

V

H.R. SANYAOLU



RESPONDENT/APPELLANT

SUIT NO. FSC 100/1963

SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA

BRETT,



J.S.C.

ONYEAMA,



J.S.C.

AJEGBO,



J.S.C.

23rd December, 1964

Land Law - Practice and Procedure - Judge dismissing plaintiff's claim to land

finding that defendant is entitled to possession but refusing him judgment,

and ordering plaintiff to pay value of land - Order invalid - Real property

- Nature of acts of possession - Must depend on nature of the land.

30

ISSUES:

1.

What type of conduct will a court consider to be indication of possession of

land.

2.

Should a Judge who finds a party entitled to possession of land, refuse him

judgment.



35

FACTS:

The plaintiff ousted the defendant and built on the land; then he sued for dec-

laration of title and injunction but failed; he did not attack the judgment against him-

self, but complained of the Judge's findings in the defendant's favour.

The defendant counter-claimed for possession; he bought from someone, but



40

could not show how his vendor acquired the land. The Judge found that the de-

fendant demarcated the land, which was bush, with stout pegs and put a caretaker

prior to the plaintiff's entry, and was entitled to possession, but did not grant him

possession; he ordered the plaintiff to pay the defendant an amount as the value

of the land.



45

On appeal counsel for the plaintiff argued (1) that the Judge's findings in the

defendant's favour were not sound on the evidence and (2) that the order was

made in the equitable jurisdiction of the court, but he could not cite authority.

Counsel for the defendant argued that the judge on his findings ought to have

granted him possession.



50

20

25