OLADIMEJI & ANOR. V. OSHODE & ANOR

• Pages: 320-325

320



NIGERIAN SUPREME COURT CASES

[1968] N.S.C.C.

We have been told, and it is agreed, however, that a sum of £15,000 has been

paid out of this total compensation awarded, and also that compensation for a

land has not been included in this case, as the court was not called upon to de-

cide this.

There will be an order for costs of 45 guineas being costs of this appeal to the



5

respondent; costs of 75 guineas awarded in the lower court in his favour (defend-

ant/respondent) should stand. It is ordered that the amount of compensation

£46:701:0d and costs be paid forthwith into court.

Appeal dismissed.

10

OLADI1V1EJ! & ANOR. V.

OSHODE & ANOR.

1.

PHILLIP OLADIMEJI

2.

MR. OYEYIFO

APPELLANTS

V

1.

MADAM OSHODE

2.

GABRIEL OSHODE

RESPONDENTS

SUIT NO. SC 68

4

/

1

966

SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA

ADEMOLA,



C.J.N.

COKER,



J.S.C.

LEWIS,



J.S.C.

31st December, 1968.

Land Law - Declaration - Title to land not proved by plaintiffs - Whether

plaintiffs use of small area of land not in dispute is evidence of the exercise



30

of possession over larger tract of land - Essential that there should be specific

finding of possession in favour of the plaintiffs

ISSUES:

1.

Whether a plaintiff's use of undisputed land can be evidence of the exercise of



35

possession over a larger tract of land.

2.

Can a plaintiff in a claim for declaration of title to land rely on the weakness of

the defendant's title.

3.

What must a plaintiff prove in order to successfully maintain an action for

trespass to land.



40

4.

Whether lack of precision in delineating the area to be covered by an order of

injunction is fatal to the granting of the injunction.

FACTS:

The appellants as plaintiffs in the Lagos High Court commenced action against

the respondents claiming a declaration of title to a certain piece of land in Yaba,



45

Lagos and special and general damages. The parties agreed that a parcel of

land comprising the land in dispute originally belonged to the Oloto Chieftaincy

family, however they disagreed as to how the disputed land eventually passed by

successive conveyances and grants and as to whom the land passed. Both sides

claimed title to the land and gave evidence. The trial judge found that the plain-



50

tiffs had not made out their claim to title and he rejected and dismissed their claims

for damages and for declaration of title. The plaintiff appealed to the Supreme

Court against the decision arguing

inter alia

that on the evidence before the trial

judge, he should have found at least that they were in physical possession of the

15

20

25