SOGUNRO & ORS v. YEKU & ORS

The case of the appellants, as could be gleaned from Paragraph 33 of the Further Amended Statement of Claim, was expressed thus “The defendants being tenants of the plaintiffs have by their actions denied the plaintiffs’ title and have claimed ownership absolutely or through other source.” The reliefs sought were couched thus:
“34 (a) A Declaration of forfeiture of the defendants’ tenure under native law and custom;
(b) Possession of the said land.”
Seven witnesses testified in favour of the plaintiffs. On their part, the defendants’ case was put forward by their five witnesses. In his address, at the end of the oral testimonies, learned counsel for the defendants contended that the plaintiffs failed to establish that they (the defendants) were their customary tenants at Ibasa. He explained that the ancestors of the defendants settled thereat. He pointed out that the plaintiffs and their witnesses confirmed that the ancestors of the defendants, namely, Odeyale and Odeleye founded Olowotedo and created Oluweri Stream or river.
Contrariwise, learned counsel for the plaintiffs urged the Court to find that they made out a case that it was the plaintiffs’ ancestors, namely, Abinu and Adetonlu, who first settled on the land, having migrated from Ile Ife, stopping over at Ijebu Ode. They finally, settled down at the land in dispute. In its judgment of October 21, 1988, the Court, (hereinafter referred to as “the trial Court”), dismissed the plaintiffs claim.
Like the trial Court, the Court of Appeal (hereinafter, simply, referred to as “the lower Court”), also dismissed the Plaintiffs’ appeal to it from the said judgment.
This further appeal to this Court is the appellants’ expression of their disavowal of the validity of the reasoning of the lower Courts judgment. Although three issues were originally formulated in the brief of argument filed on May 14, 2012, learned counsel for the appellants abandoned the second and third issues at the hearing of the appeal on November 29, 2016.
They were accordingly, struck out. In effect, only the sub-joined first issue is outstanding in the appellants’ favour:
Whether the lower Court have (sic) sufficiently considered the findings of the trial Court as to the establishment by the respondents of long settlement on the disputed land their root of title by way of long settlement or sufficient traditional evidence?
On his part, learned counsel for the respondents formulated two issues. As a logical corollary to the approach of the learned counsel for the appellants, he [the respondents’ counsel], also abandoned the second issue in the brief filed on March 30, 2015, although deemed properly filed on November 29, 2016. Thus, only the first issue in the said brief is outstanding in favour of the respondents. It was framed thus:
Whether having regarding (sic) to the pleadings and totality of evidence adduced, the Court below was right in the (sic) dismissing the appellants’ appeal?
My Lords, in my humble view, the phraseology of the outstanding issue one in the respondents’ brief is more felicitous than the woolly tenor of the appellants’ outstanding issue.
Above all, it is even more succinct and more precise apropos the appellants’ main grouse against the judgment of the lower Court. It will accordingly, be adopted if the determination of this appeal. Thus, the issue for determination is:
Whether having regard to the pleadings and totality of evidence adduced, the Court below was right in dismissing the appellants’ appeal?
Before dealing with this issue, it would be necessary to dispose of the Preliminary objection of the respondents. The gist of the said objection, argued on page 3-5 of the respondents brief, was that the appellants’, in their Ground Four of the Notice and Grounds of Appeal, raised the issue of acquisition for the first time without obtaining the leave of Court.
It was pointed out that, at the lower Court, the respondents canvassed the same objection: an objection which the said lower Court upheld. Learned counsel submitted that the only option left for the appellants was to challenge the lower Courts order striking out the said ground by complaining against it. He cited several cases on the point that the ground formulated on the said question of

…………………….B…………………….