DOSUNMU V. JOTO

• Pages: 1182-1194

1182



NIGERIAN SUPREME COURT CASES

[1987] 2 N.S.C.C.

NNAEMEKA-AGU, J.S.C.:

There is no appeal before the Court. The appeal is

strudk out; as time cannot be extended. But the brief filed by the appellant shows

some merit. It is suggested that the provision in this Court be amended in line with

that relating to appeals to the Court of Appeal in Decree No. 59 of 1979.

The view of this Court to this matter should be made available to the Attorney-



5

General of the Federation and the Committee on Prerogative of Mercy, Imo State.

Appeal struck out.

Appeal struck out.

10

DOSUNMU V. JOTO

15

ALHAJI ISIAKA DOSUNMU



APPELLANT

V

BEATRICE ADESOMO JOTO



RESPONDENT

SUIT NO. SC 34/1985

SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA



20

ESO,



J.S.C.

ANIAGOLU,



J.S.C.

NNAMANI,



J.S.C.

UWAIS,



J.S.C.

OPUTA,



J.S.C.



25

16th October, 1987

Land Law - Land on which defendant based title different from land in dispute

- No dispute exists anymore between parties and defendant cannot complain

of plaintiffs failure to prove how he derived his title - Plaintiff relies on



30

and proves conveyance as his root of title - No need to prove vendor's root

of title.

ISSUE:

1. Whether a plaintiff in a land case who relies on and proves a conveyance as



35

his root of title is also required to prove his vendor's root of title.

FACTS:

The respondent sued the appellant in the Lagos High Court claiming a decla-

ration of title to land, an injunction and damages. Both parties claimed title to the

disputed land by virtue of deeds of conveyance made in either party's favour by



40

two different families. The respondent called a surveyor as a witness and he ten-

dered three plans showing that the land conveyed to the respondent in her con-

veyance

was separate and distinct from the one conveyed to the appellant in his

conveyance. This evidence was uncontroverted. The trial judge granted all the

reliefs sought by the respondent, and the appellant unsuccessfully appealed to the



45

Court of Appeal. He further appealed to the Supreme Court

HELD:

When a plaintiff in a land case relies on and proves a conveyance as his root

of title, he does not need to go beyond his vendor and then proceed to prove that

vendor's title as well. Unless the vendor's title has become an issue in the case,



50

parties to a land case which titles are rooted in Deeds of Conveyance need not

plead or prove the title of their vendors. In the instant case, the appellant, being

a self-confessed trespasser had no right to demand proof of the respondent's title

let alone the title of her vendors.