SALAMI & ORS V. OKE

• Pages: 1167-1180

SALAMI & ORS V. OKE



1167

In the final result, for all the reasons given above and for the fuller reasons in

the lead Reasons for Judgment of my learned brother Obaseki, J.S.C. which I

adopt as mine, this appeal ought to be dismissed. It was for all those reasons that

I on the 30th day of June, 1987, did dismiss the appeal.

5



Appeal dismissed.

10



SALAMI & ORS V. OKE

MADAM SAFURATU SALAMI & ORS.

V

15 SUNMONU ENIOLA OKE

SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA

OBASEKI,



J.S.C.

ANIAGOLU,



J.S.C.

20



KAWU,



J.S.C.

OPUTA,



J.S.C.

BELGORE,



J.S.C.

2nd October, 1987

APPELLANTS

RESPONDENT

SUIT NO. SC 236/1986

25

Land Law - Effect of s.40 of Land Use Act 1978 - Whether s.40 of Land Use

Act divests court of power to grant ancilliary reliefs- of forfeiture and injunction

- Effect of S.36 of Land Use Act, 1978.

ISSUES:

30



1. What is the effect of s.40 of the Land Use Act, 1978?

2.

Whether s.40 of the Land Use Act 1978 has abolished claims for forfeiture and

injunctions in respect of land matters.

3.

Whether it is proper for a trial judge to refer to an original statement of defence,

which has been amended.

35

FACTS:

The respondents in the I badan High Court claimed against the appellants a dec-

laration of title to a parcel of land, forfeiture of the customary tenancy of the ap-

pellants' holdings, arrears of ''ishakole" and an injunction. The action was pending

when the Land Use Act came into force. The trial judge granted all the reliefs

40



caught by the respondents save the claim for "Ishakole". Thereupon the appellants

appealed to the Court of Appeal where their appeal was dismissed; they further

appealed to the Supreme Court where they raised issues as to whether it was

proper for the trial judge to have referred to a statement of defence which had

been amended. The appellants submitted that s.40 of the Land Use Act abolished

45



claims for forfeiture and injunction and that s.36(2) of the Act in effect transferred

possession from landlord to tenant.

HELD:

1. Section 40 of the Land Use Act deals with two issues namely:

(i)

it allows the courts to continue hearing cases pertaining to title to land

50



which cases were pending before the commencement of the Act.

(ii)

the section stipulates the type of order in respect of the entitlement of either

of the parties to the proceedings that can be made. It states that the only

title that can be awarded by the courts to a successful party is that of a right

of occupancy, whether statutory or customary.