OKUOJA V. ISHOLA

• Pages: 280-292

OKUOJA V. ISHOLA



260

OKUOJA V. ISHOLA

5

KAYODE OKUOJA

V

10 OBAFUNMILAYO ISHOLA

SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA

IRIKEFE,



J.S.C.

BELLO,



J.S.C.

15



ESO,



J.S.C.

NNAMANI,



J.S.C.

UWAIS,



J.S.C.

16th July, 1982

APPELLANT

RESPONDENT

SUIT NO. SC 102/1981

20



Land Law - Declaration of title - Damages for trespass - Injunction - Onus of

proof - Plaintiffs relying on conveyance to the predecessor-in-title coupled with

subsequent purchases by him evidenced by receipts - Plan attached to that

conveyance showing land i,r dispute as part of defendant family's land -

Plaintiffs' failure to prove its subsequent sale to their predecessor-in- title by

25





defendant family or prove boundaries of land covered by the purchase receipts

or prove acts of ownership - Plaintiffs' claims rightly dismissed by High court.

ISSUES:

1.

Whether purchase receipts for land which do not have any instruments

30





accompanying them to indicate exactly which lands they relate to have any

probative value.

2.

When will acts of user and possession be taken to confer on a party, title to a

land in dispute?

3.

When should an appellate court interfere with findings of fact by a trial court?

35

FACTS:

The plaintiffs/respondent in this court brought an action for declaration of title

to land trespass and injunction. In the course of the trial, the plaintiff, in support

of their case tendered purchase receipts and a plan of the land in dispute. The

defendants, now appellants, based their own case on the claim that their families

40





were the owners of the land from time immemorial. The learned trial Judge dis-

missed the respondents' case on the ground that they had failed to make out a

case for declaration of title and he refused to grant their reliefs of damages and

perpetual injunction. His main 'ground for dismissing the claim was that the re-

ceipts relied on by the responde its could not have been related in any way to the

45





land in dispute. He found as a fact that the evidence adduced by the respondents

could not prove conclusively that they were entitled to the declaration sought. The

respondents appealed to the Court of Appeal which overturned the learned trial

Judge's finding of fact and allowed the appeal. The learned Justice held that they

were satisfied with the receipts aid were of the view that the finding of the learned

50





trial Judge was unjustified either on the evidence or the pleading. They held fur-

ther that the respondent had proved sufficient user and possession to support his

claim. On appeal to the Supreme Court:-