KARIMU V. FAJUBE

• Pages: 16-19

16



NIGERIAN SUPREME COURT CASES

[1968] N.S.C.C.

the 23rd day of November, 1960, whereby the land in dispute was let by the de-

fendant to the first plaintiff, Akadiri Kilani and Esther Titi. Akadiri Kilani is de-

scribed as the chief tenant in exhibit B and the first plaintiff and Esther Titi are

described as sub- tenants. According to exhiit B £1 rent is payable monthly. Both

the first plaintiff and Esther Titi testified that they were fraudulently induced by the



5

defendant to sign exhibit B. It is not necessary to deal with this aspect of the case

as the learned trial judge made no finding of fact on the allegation of fraud. The

first plaintiff admitted paying monthly rents to the defendant until he was informed

by one Gbadebo Coker that the defendant was not the owner of the land. The

second plaintiff also testified that Gbadebo Coker asked her to stop paying rent



10

to the defendant and to quote from her evidence "therefore, we stopped paying

rent to the defendant." The only conclusion that can be drawn from this is that she

was for some time the defendant's tenant. In view of this relationship of landlord

and tenant which existed between the first and second plaintiffs on the one hand

and the defendant on the other hand, the first and second plaintiffs cannot now



15

dispute the defendant's title to the land in dispute. In Cooke v.

Loxley

101 E.R. 2

at page 3, Grose J. reitreated the general rule that a tenant cannot dispute his land-

lord's title and Further stated that "no rule is better founded in justice and policy

than this." In our view, at the time of the alleged trespass, the defendant had a right

to resume possession of the land in dispute, and consequently, the plaintiffs can-



20

not maintain an action for trespass and injunction against him. In the result, we

are of the opinion that the judgment under appeal cannot be supported.

The result is that this appeal will be allowed; the judgment of the High Court

of the I badan Judicial Division in Suit No.

1

/

1

09/63 is hereby set aside, and judg-

ment is entered dismissing the plaintiffs' claim with 150 guineas. If the defendant



25

has made any payments by virtue of the judgment of the High Court, they should

be refunded to him.

Appeal

allowed.

Judgment of High Court set aside:

Plaintiffs' claim dismissed.



30

KARIMU V. FAJUBE



35

ABUDU KARIMU



APPELLANT

V

DANIEL FAJUBE



RESPONDENT



40

SUIT NO. SC 388/1964

SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA

ADEMOLA,



C.J.N.

BAIRAMIAN,



J.S.C.

COKER,



J.S.C.



45

18th January, 1968.

Land Law - Declaration of title - Plaintiff granted declaration of title to area of

land which included land he had sold already to 3rd parties - Conflict of

traditional evidence - Traditional evidence found inconclusive - Resort to acts



50

of ownership as decisive of ownership.