OLUWI V. ENIOLA

• Pages: 248-250

248



NIGERIAN SUPREME COURT CASES

[1967] N.S.C.C.

OLUWI V. ENIOLA

5

GEORGE AYENI OLUWI

V

DANIEL ENIOLA

APPELLANT

RESPONDENT

SUIT NO. SC 542.1965

10

15

SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA

BRETT,



J.S.C.

LEWIS,



J.S.C.

MADARIKAN,



J.S.C.

17th November. 1967.

Land Law - Declaration of title - Trespass - Injunction - Area of land for which

declaration is sought not sufficiently established - Claim for trespass not

dependent on the claim for declaration of title - Injunction may issue although



20

claim for declaration of title fails.

ISSUES:

1.

Whether a claim for injunction in respect of land can succeed where the area

of land for which the injunction is sought is not clearly defined.



25

2.

Whether a claim for trespass is necessarily dependent on the success or failure

of a claim for declaration of title.

3.

Whether an injunction may still be granted even though the claim for declaration

of title fails.

FACTS:



30

The appellant was the plaintiff in the High Court of Western Nigeria and claimed

against the defendant/respondent a declaration of title to a piece of land, £100

being damages for trespass and an injunction restraining the defendant from fur-

ther trespass.

The High Court dismissed the plaintiff's claim on the ground that the area of



35

land which the plaintiff alleged had been granted to him by the traditional ruler was

not sufficiently established by evidence.

On appeal, counsel for the appellant, while conceding that the claim for dec-

laration of title was rightly rejected, submitted that there was sufficient evidence of

the possession of the plaintiff to warrant a finding for him on his claim for dam-



40

ages for trespass since that was a separate issue; but conceded that as an injunc-

tion must apply to a clearly defined area the claim for an injunction must fail for

the same reason as the claim for a declaration of title.

In reply, counsel for the respondent submitted that as the appellant had

conceded that his claim for a declaration of title was rightly rejected then the claim



45

for trespass and the claim for injunction must also fail as they were dependent

upon it.

HELD:

1.

Whilst a claim for injunction is not necessarily bound to fail after a claim for a

declaration of title fails, it must do so, as in this case, when the area of land in



50

respect of which an injunction is sought is not clearly defined.

2.

The claim for trespass however is not dependent on claim for a declaration of

title as the time to be determined on the claim for trespass was whether the

plaintiff had established his actual possession of the land and the defendant's