DA COSTA V. IKOMI

• Pages: 309-313

DA COSTA V. IKOMI



309

DA COSTA V. !KOMI

5

LAWRENCE GREGORIO DA COSTA



APPELLANT

V

10 STELLA OMOWALE IKOMI

[Married woman for and on

behalf of herself and all

the other children of

E.B. Ogunbayo (deceased)]



RESPONDENT

15





SUIT NO. SC/733/1966

SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA

ADEMOLA,



C.J.N.

COKER,



J.S.C.

LEWIS,



J.S.C.

20



20th December, 1968

Land Law - Declaration - Title to land - Title from Oloto family pleaded but

not proved by plaintiff - Whether plaintiff could rely on long possession or

acquiescence as against true owner holding from Oloto

25

ISSUES:

1.

Whether a plaintiff in a claim for title to land can rely on long possession or

acquiescence as against the true owner.

2.

How far does a possessor's presumption of ownership under s.145 of the

30



Evidence Act extend.

3.

Is long possession and acquiescence a weapon of offence and must it be

specifically pleaded.

FACTS:

The plaintiff brought an action against the defendant in the Lagos High Court

35



claiming as against him a declaration of title to a certain piece of land in Yaba,

Lagos; £100 as general damages for trespass; and an injunction. At all times ma-

terial to the proceedings the plaintiff was in possession of the said land. The plain-

tiff in her statement of claim averred that the land originally belonged to the Oloto

family and that by means of successive conveyances, the property passed to her

40



father. The defendant agreed that the original owners were the Oloto family but

averred in his statement of defence that the Oloto family did not sell the land to any

person as alleged by the plaintiff, and that on or about the 20th December, 1963,

representatives of the family conveyed the land to him and he registered the con-

veyance at the Lagos Island Registry. The trial judge gave judgment with costs in

45



favour of the plaintiff in terms of her writ, save that he assessed general damages

at £50 instead of the £100 claimed. The defendant appealed to the Supreme Court

arguing

inter alia,

that the plaintiff failed to prove any title derived from the Oloto

family, as her only evidence as to title was the conveyances to her father of 29th

February, 1944 and 27th April, 1951, which were from subsequent holders not

50



proved to hold from the Oloto family.

HELD:

1. The plaintiff's claim stood or fell on establishing a good title derived from the

Oloto family and this she failed to prove whilst to the contrary the defendant

had established that he had a good title from the Oloto family. The defendant's