OKEAYA V. AGUEBOR

• Pages: 1-9

OKEAYA V. AGUEBOR



1

OKEAVA V. AGUEBOR

5

K.S. OKEAYA

V

10 MADAM EKIOMADO AGUEBOR

SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA

COKER,



J.S.C.

UDOMA,



J.S.C.

15 FATAI-WILLIAMS, J.S.C.

16th January, 1970

APPELLANT

RESPONDENT

SUIT NO. SC 58/1968

Customary Land Law - Declaration - Title to land - Bini Customary law -

Plaintiff's evidence inconsistent and contradictory - Whether on evidence before

20



the court grant of land to plaintiff by Oba approved.

ISSUES:

1.

What is the mode of acquiring a grant of land under Bini Customary law?

2.

What is the importance of an inspection by the Plot Allotment Committee in the

25



acquisition of land under Bini Customary law?

FACTS:

The respondent was in possession of a parcel of land in Benin City and exer-

cised positive acts of ownership and possession thereon. She bought the land

from one Robinson and claimed she obtained title to the parcel of land by applying

30



to the plot allotment committee of Ward 23 L, which application was approved by

the Oba.

The Appellant asserted rights on the same piece of land contending that he

bought the land in dispute from one Okpogie and called in question the identity of

the land purportedly acquired by the Respondent. The Respondent's evidence

35



was inconsistent and contradicted, that of her witnesses as regards the inspection

of land by the Plot Allotment Con mittee. Further, it was significant that she did not

call Robinson as a witness. The trial Judge assumed Exhibit B (an application for

approval to erect a building upon a piece of land already acquired) represented

a grant of land and found for the Respondent.

40



On appeal, the Appellant raised the question of identity of land, contending that

the land in dispute was not that which Robinson sold to the Respondent, for which

Exhibit A was executed. In fact tie land covered by Exhibit A and originally sold

to her, belonged to someone else and that the land now in dispute was allocated

to the Respondent as cornpensElion and in substitution for the original piece of

45



land.

HELD:

1. The evidence in support of the case of the Respondent was inconsistent and

contradictory. She even failed to follow the prescribed customary procedure

in her attempt to acquire the land in dispute. Her application, Exhibit B, upon

50



which she placed much reliance was not of any assistance to her for the purpose

of acquiring land under Bini Customary Law. Exhibit B on the face of it was an

application for approval to erect a building upon a piece of land already

acquired, and not an application seeking the Oba's approval for the acquisition