ERINLE V. ADELAJA & ORS.
| Pages | 212-217 |
212
NIGERIAN SUPREME COURT CASES
[19691 N.S.C.C.
topped per
rem judicatam
from exercising the rights they in fact had established
(see
Ume v Ezechi
Dele v. Adelalu
(1966) N.M.L.R. 105),
but there is no povision for this in a Customary Court. We propose, therefore, in
order to do justice between the parties and to determine the real point at issue, to
order that the finding in the Grade B Customary Court be treated as the judgment
of that Court.
We accordingly set aside the judgment of the High Court, together with the
order that no costs be paid in the High Court, and we enter judgment for the Plain-
tiffs and declare that the cocoa farmland situated at Ayowi farm in Suit CNO/2/1961
in the Egbedore Grade B Customary Court be held in joint ownership according
10
to Native Law and Custom by the Plaintiffs and Defendants to that suit.
The Plaintiffs are entitled to their costs of this appeal which we assess at 49 gui-
neas and to their costs in the High Court which we assess at 25 guineas.
Appeal allowed.
15
ERINLE V. ADELAJA & ORS.
20
LASISI ERINLE (On behalf of
APPELLANT
himself and Olugbade family)
V
SALAMI ADELAJA & 4 OTHERS
SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA
COKER,
Ag. C.J.N.
LEWIS,
J.S.C.
FATAL-WILLIAMS, J.S.C.
6th June, 1969.
RESPONDENTS
25
SUIT NO. SC 332/1966
30
Customary Law - Customary tenant persistently disputing title of overlord -
Forfeiture - Whether conduct amounts to misbehaviour on issue of fact -
Whether particular misbehaviour entails forfeiture, an issue of Law.
35
ISSUES:
1.
Whether the behaviour of a tenant, such as to entail forfeiture, is a matter of law
or fact.
2.
Whether the denial by a tenant of his landlord's title, is sufficient to incur the
40
penalty of forfeiture.
FACTS:
In an action brought by the Plaintiff/Appellant in the High Court, seeking re-
covery of possession of a piece of land against the defendants, there was evi-
dence that the first defendant notwithstanding a series of judgments wherein the
45
plaintiff/appellant was confirmed as owner of the land, persisted in disputing the
title of the plaintiff, his overlord.
The High Court held that although the first defendant denied the plaintiff's title
to the Land in his statement of defence, his failure to lead evidence to dispute the
plaintiff's title amounted to a change of attitude; he therefore declined to order for-
50
feiture.
On appeal to the Supreme Court:
To continue reading
Request your trial