Partition

…………………….A…………………….

MODUPE FASANMI, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): This is an appeal against the judgment of the Oyo State High Court of Justice in Suit No. 1/70/2002 delivered on the 31st of July 2006 dismissing the claims of the Appellant.
By the Amended Statement of claim filed on the 20th of February, 2003, at page 13 of the record of appeal, Appellant as Plaintiff at the trial Court claimed as follows:-
1. DECLARATION that the Plaintiff is entitled to the Certificate of Statutory Right of Occupancy over all that piece or parcel of land situate, lying and being at Ataaba Village, Oke-Ogunpa Area, Off Lagos/Ibadan Expressway more particularly delineated on Plan No. ADE/OY/96/2000.
2. N1,000,000.00 (One Million Naira) only being General damages for trespass committed and still being committed by the Defendants on the Plaintiff’s land situated at Ataaba village and more particularly showed on Plan No. ADE/OY/96/2000.
3. PERPETUAL INJUNCTION restraining the Defendants, their servants, agents, privies and or anybody claiming through or hinder them from committing further acts of trespass on the Plaintiff’s land.
The case of the Appellant is that he purchased a parcel of land measuring approximately 211/2 acres at Ataba village of Ibadan/Lagos Express Way from Yidiatu Raimi Kegbeyale under native law and custom. It was the Appellant’s case that PW1 had inherited the land from her late father Raimi Ayoade Kegbeyale. It was also the Appellant’s case that Raimi Ayoade Kegbeyale had become the exclusive and individual owner of the land by virtue of the partitioning of Kegbeyale family land.
On the other hand, it is the case of the Respondents that the land in dispute formed and still forms part of partitioned and undivided Kegbeyale family land and the Appellant’s purported vendor PW1 had no right or title to sell such family land.
The case proceeded to trial. At the end of the trial, the learned trial Judge found that the Appellant failed to prove that Kegbeyale family land was partitioned and consequently dismissed the Appellant’s claims. Dissatisfied with the Judgment, Appellant filed his Notice of Appeal on the 18th of September, 2006 at pages 66- 69 of the record.
Appellant’s brief of argument was filed on the 6th of September, 2013. It was deemed properly filed and served on the 2nd of February, 2015. Learned Counsel for the Appellant adopts and relies on the arguments in the brief for the appeal. Learned Counsel urges the Court to allow the appeal.
Respondents brief of argument was filed on the 25/2/2015. Learned Counsel for the Respondent adopts and relies on the arguments contained in the brief. Learned Counsel urges the Court to dismiss the appeal.
Learned Counsel for the Appellant distilled a sole issue for determination thus:-
Whether the dismissal of the Plaintiff’s case is wrong given the state of the pleadings and the evidence both oral and documentary before the trial Court that Kagbeyale family land had been partitioned and there has been individual sale of land. (Covers grounds 2, 3 and 4 of the notice of appeal).
Learned Counsel for the Respondents distilled a sole issue for determination thus:-
Whether or not the learned trial Court was justified in holding that the Appellant had failed to establish that the land in dispute had been partitioned by the Kegbeyale family to his vendor and consequently dismissing the Appellant’s claims.
I have taken time to consider the facts of this case as in the printed record. I have also calmly reviewed the submissions of counsel in their respective briefs. I will adopt the sole issue formulated by the Respondent in the determination of the appeal as it captures the controversy between the parties. The issue states:-
Whether or not the learned trial Court was justified in holding that the Appellant had failed to establish that the land in dispute had been partitioned by the Kegbeyale family to his vendor and consequently dismissing the Appellant’s claims.
Learned counsel for the Appellant submitted that the Appellant pleaded purchase of the land in dispute from one Yidiatu Raimi Ayoade Kegbeyale, who had in turn inherited the land in dispute from her father Raimi Ayoade Kegbeyale to whom the land was partitioned long ago while the Yidiatu Raimi Ayoade Kegbeyale was still a child. The Respondents filed a Statement of Defence denying the claim of the Appellant and pleaded that Kegbeyale family was made up of four (4) branches viz: Karimu Adejumo, Ganiyu Adejumo, Mudasiru Adejumo and Akanmu Raimi Ayoade.