OWODUNNI V. GEORGE

• Pages: 184-189

184



NIGERIAN SUPREME COURT CASES

[1967] N.S.C.C.

OWODUNNI V. GEORGE

5

M. OLA OWODUNNI



APPELLANT

V.

ANTHONY AKINSOLA GEORGE



RESPONDENT



10

SUIT NO. SC 428/1965

SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA

BRETT,



J.S.C.

BAIRAMIAN,



J.S.C.

LEWIS,



J.S.C.



15

26th May, 1967

Equity - Acquiescence as a bar to claim for possession - plaintiff standing by

while defendant built in the mistaken belief that land was his - whether

doctrine of constructive notice applies.



20

ISSUE:

1. Whether acquiescence is a bar to a claim for possession, such claim being

based on the doctrine of constructive notice.

FACTS:



25

The piece of land in dispute formed part of a large area which originally be-

longed to the Eyisha family. The plaintiff, (respondent on appeal) bought a piece

of land with a conveyance from the son of one L.G. in 1956, whose title he traced

back to the conveyance given to L.G. in 1911 by the son of the head of one branch

of the Eyisha family. The plaintiff sued in 1963 for a declaration of title and pos-



30

session, based on these conveyances.

The defendant, now the appellant, denied the plaintiff's title arguing that in 1958

he obtained a conveyance of it from certain persons purporting to act for the

Eyisha family. He argued further that in 1961 he obtained a deed of ratification

from an important member of the family who had not signed the conveyance. He



35

claimed that he had been in undisturbed possession and that he had built a large

house on the land in 1959, and more buildings in 1961. He relied on !aches and

acquiescence.

The plaintiff admitted knowledge in 1960 of the defendant's building prepara-

tions on the land, but failed to prove his averment that he had warned the defend-



40

ant. The trial judge upheld the plaintiff's claim for title, and held in regard to the

defendant's claim in equity that, although the plaintiff had not established that he

warned the defendant, the defendant had a duty to make a thorough search be-

fore buying and would have thereby found out about the plaintiff's title had he

done so. He gave judgment for the plaintiff.



45

In the Supreme Court,the plaintiff's counsel conceded that the judgment rec-

ognised the equity of the defendant's case but rejected iton the ground of con-

structive notice. He relied on

Morayo v. Okiade

to support this ground of rejection.

HELD

1. Assuming that the defendant was mistaken in his belief that the land was his,



50

the doctrine of constructive notice could not be applied to help the plaintiff,

who was guilty of standing by; the equity of the defendant's case must prevail

and the plaintiff is debarred from turning the defendant out.