OLAGUNRO V. OGUNSANYA & ANOR

• Pages: 176-180

176



NIGERIAN SUPREME COURT CASES

[1970] N.S.C.C.

than that of a police officer, in particular under section 20 of the Police Act, hav-

ing regard to section 3(1) of the Law Enforcement Law, and if the matter is looked

at objectively through the eyes of a reasonable man, he could have had in our view

no reasonable suspicion of an offence. It was no more incumbent on the plaintiff

when challenged by the defendant to fully prove his innocence than for the 1st de-



5

fendant to have at that moment proof, even

prima facie

proof, of his guilt, and the

only issue was whether the 1st defendant discharged the onus on him of justifying

his arrest and detention of the plaintiff by virtue of having reasonable suspicion of

an offence, and, as we have indicated, we do not think he did for either.

In our view therefore the learned Chief Magistrate on the facts came to a right



10

conclusion and the learned Judge on appeal was in error in reversing him. We

accordingly set aside the judgment of Begho, J. dismissing the plaintiff's claim

and, as no argument was presented before us as to the quantum of damages

awarded, we restore the judgment of the Chief Magistrate awarding the plaintiff,

as against the 1st defendant, £100 damages and 35 guineas costs. The plaintiff



15

is also entitled as against the 1st defendant to his costs in the High Court on the

appeal which we assess at 20 guineas and to his costs in this Court which we as-

sess at 71 guineas. As we have stated earlier the appeal as against the 2nd de-

fendant was dismissed during the hearing.

Appeal allowed.



20

OLAGUNRO V. OGUNSANYA & ANOR.

25

WULEMOTU OLAGUNRO



APPELLANT

V

J.B. OGUNSANYA AND ANOR



RESPONDENTS



30

SUIT NO. SC 407/1067

SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA

ADEMOLA,



C.J.N.

LEWIS,



J.S.C.

tAADARI KAN,



J.S.C.



35

15th May, 1970

Land Law - Family land - Will - Allotment to beneficiaries - Tenancy in common

- No deed of partition - Whether a beneficiary could transfer his portion.

40

ISSUE:

1. Whether a beneficiary of family land (as a tenant in common with others) can

transfer his port on where there is no deed of partition?

FACTS:

The plaintiff was one of the beneficiaries of family land under a Will. All benefi-



45

ciaries were tenants in common and no deed of partition was executed in favour

of any of the beneficiaries. The plaintiff's claim against the defendant was a dec-

laration for an order that the purported sale of a portion of the family property was

not valid. The defendant claimed that the property had been partitioned, although

no formal deed of partition was executed. He further claimed that each benefi-



50

ciary, had by agreement between themselves the absolute use of a portion of the

property.

The trial Judge held that there had in fact been a partition.

On appeal to the Supreme Court: