OLAYIDE V. OSO

• Pages: 274-278

OLAYIDE V. OSO



274

OLAYIDE V. OSO



5

MICHAEL 0. OLAYIDE



APPELLANT

V

OLADEINDE 0. OSO



RESPONDENT



10

SUIT NO. SC 36/1967

SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA

COKER,



J.S.C.

LEWIS,



J.S.C.

FATAI-WILLIAMS, J.S.C.



15

4th July, 1969.

Land Law - Declaration of title - Non-suit wrongly ordered wizen should have

been dismissed - Squatter cannot sue owner for trespass - Land possession

can only be used as a shield - Odutola v. Akande 5 F.S.C. 142 doubted.



20

ISSUES:

1.

What is the proper order in a case for declaration of title, where the plaintiff

fails to prove his case?

2.

Is it possible for a trespasser to sue another party in trespass to the same land?



25

3.

Can the pleas of long possession be used as a basis of a claim in an action

instituted against the true owner of property for a declaration of title?

FACTS:

The plaintiff brought an action in Court for declaration of title to land, damages

for trespass and an injunction restraining the defendants from further trespass. On



30

the evidence given in court it was agreed that the original owner was the Oloto

family. The question was now who had acquired proper title from the original

owner. In the High Court the Judge found that the plaintiff had not proved his claim

and ordered a non-suit. The defendant appealed.

HELD:



35

1.

The plaintiff based his case on the direct purchase of the land from the Oloto

Chieftaincy Family but the trial Judge found that he failed to prove this. The

pleadings of the Plaintiff did not aver any direct purchase from that family and

the Judge was clearly in error in thinking that there was such a claim.

2.

In a series of cases constituting a long line of consistent authorities, it has been



40

held that where a Plaintiff in an action for declaration of title fails to prove his

case the proper order is one of dismissal. In this case, the trial Judge found

that the Plaintiff failed to prove his case. Therefore the proper order should

have been one of dismissal and not a non- suit.

3.

On the findings of the trial Judge, the Plaintiff had failed to establish that he



45

derived his title from the true owners of the land. He was at best a squatter.

Trespass is a wrong to possession and the rule of law is that a trespasser can

maintain action in trespass against anyone else except the true owner. On this

basis, it was inconceivable that the Plaintiff in the circumstances of this case

could maintain an action in trespass against the acknowledged owners of the



50

land or any person or persons claiming through them. That was the position

vis

a

vis

the Defendant in this case and surely as he held a conveyance from

the accepted owners he could not be successfully sued in trespass by someone

who was himself a squatter.