AMODU V. OLAWOLE

• Pages: 768-772

768



NIGERIAN SUPREME COURT CASES [1986] 2 N.S.C.C.

AMODU V. OLAWOLE



5

BURAIMOH AMODU



APPELLANT

V

LASISI OLAWOLE



RESPONDENT



10

SUIT NO. SC 75/1985

SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA

OBASEKI,



J.S.C.

NNAMAN I,



J.S.C.

KAZEEM,



J.S.C.



15

KAWU,



J.S.C.

OPUTA,



J.S.C.

28th May 1986

Appeals- Supreme Court - Findings of fact - Claim for declaration of title -



20

Concurrent findings of lower Courts as to possession and ownership - Absence

of substantial error of law or procedure occasioning miscarriage of justice -

Jurisdiction - Appeal dismissed.

ISSUES:



25

1.

Whether the fact of a grant of land lost in antiquity and to which there is no

person living to testify as an eye- witness to the grant can be proved by

traditional evidence.

2.

Whether a claim can be sustained on grounds of possession and ownership

where traditional evidence is inconclusive.



30

3.

Whether concurrent findings of fact may be set aside, when there is no

miscarriage of justice.

FACTS:

The Plaintiffs/Respondents commenced an action in the Oshun North-West

Grade 'B' Customary Court. They claimed ownership and declaration of title to a



35

piece of land at Ora Adejumo Agboleri Bridge Oshogbo, which was bounded by

certain lands, as shown on the survey plan tendered as

Exhibit B.

The Plaintiffs/Re-

spondents based their root of title on a grant made to them by the Shoun of Og-

bomoso about 200 years previously, and also on possession of the said land and

acts of ownership exercised thereon. On the other hand the defendants/appel-



40

lants based, their root of title to the said land, on settlement by their ancestors.

Moreover, they testified that the Plaintiffs/Respondents were their tenants and that

when they demanded Ishakole (tribute) from them, and they failed to pay, that the

Plaintiffs/Respondent were disturbed on the land. Hence they sued.

The issue of the identity of the land in dispute was not raised, and the evidence



45

of the Plaintiffs/Respondents on the boundaries of the land in dispute was not chal-

lenged at the trial.

The President of the Customary Court, after considering the testimonies of the

parties, found that the Plaintiffs/Respondents had proved their claim both on the

ground of grant as well as on the ground of possession and acts of ownership.



50

These findings of fact were confirmed by the appellate High Court and the Court

of Appeal. Thus there were concurrent findings of fact by the three lower Courts.

On appeal to the Supreme Court.