ISIBA & ORS. V. HANSON & ANOR.

• Pages: 3-6

ISIBA & ORS. V. HANSON & ANOR.



3

he is under cross-examination. It is, in our view, impossible for the trial Judge

to form a just opinion of the merits of a witness in circumstances in which the

examination-in-chief amounts to no more than the reading of a statement



"

5



We agree with what was said in that case and we hope that defending counsel

will take note of it.

When the appeal was heard on the 6th January we dismissed it and these are

our reasons for having done so.

Appeal dismissed.

10

ISIBA & ORS. V. HANSON & ANOR.

15

BELLO ISIBA AND OTHERS

V.

1. J.T. HANSON

20 2. S.O. THOMAS

SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA

ADEMOLA,



C.J.N.

COKER,



J.S.C.

25



LEWIS,



J.S.C.

11th January, 1967

APPELLANTS

RESPONDENTS

SUIT NO. SC 624/1965

Yoruba Native Law and Custom - Customary Tenancy - Possession is of the

essence - Family land - Reversion to common ancestor on death of allottee

30



intestate without issue - Right of family to sue after reversion

Practice and Procedure - Family land - Family suing in respect of allottee's

portion after reversion to common ancestor on intestacy - Claim for forfeiture

of customary tenancy - Land granted to defendant's ancestor by plaintiffs

35



ancestor - Onus to prove whether outright gift as against customary tenancy

on defendant.

ISSUES:

1.

Where original ownership has been proved to be in a party, who bears the

40



burden of proving that that party has been divested of such ownership.

2.

Whether long possession of family land without more is evidence of an absolute

gift.

3.

What happens to a portion of family land where where allottee dies intestate

without issue.

45

FACTS:

The plaintiffs/appellants who are Aworis, claimed that the land occupied by the

first defendant/respondent and his ancestor was granted to his ancestor by their

Awori ancestor some 170 years earlier on condition that the land be used for farm-

ing only. Recently, the first defendant had purported to sell a portion of the said

50



land to the second defendant and had denied the title of the plaintiffs to the said

land and claimed to be the owner. The first defendant claimed that the said land

was, in or about the year 1790, given to his ancestors by the Awori owners and

that the descendant had since occupied the land as of right and that he therefore,

as a descendant, was entitled, E[s he did, to sell a portion of the land to the sec-