Follow Us on Google
Eye Ojo, Ibadan
The Court of Appeal, Ibadan division has set aside the judgment of an Ogun State High Court granting statutory right of occupancy on parcels of land situated at Ajelanwa Olowo Igbo village and Kajola Iboro village via Atan Ota, Ogun State to Oyeyemi Asalu family.
The appellate court, in its unanimous decision, also dismissed the suit filed by respondents; Oba Samuel Olufemi Ojugbele and four others for themselves and on behalf of members of Oyeyemi Asalu family of Iga, Isalu Ota and awarded N250, 000 against the family.
The appellate court held that the appellants have the right to appoint Alhaji Mutairu Owoeye, Ganiyu Owoeye and Tunde (A.K.A One hour) seventh-ninth appellants, as agents over the land in dispute.
The lower court had, in its judgment, declared that the respondents were the persons entitled to statutory right of occupancy over the disputed land.
Dissatisfied, the appellants Alhaji Yekini Solabi, Lamina Solabi, Jimoh Solabi, Fasasi Solabi, Ibrahim Solabi and their agents, Alhaji Mutairu Owoeye and Ganiyu Owoeye, appealed against the judgement and urged the court to set it aside.
Resolving all the five issues raised in favour of the appellants, Justice Olukayode Bada, in his lead judgement, held that it was wrong for the lower court to have made an order of forfeiture against the appellants.
The court noted that though the respondents claimed they are the direct children of Oyeyemi whom they said founded the disputed land, but they failed to prove by evidence how the land was transferred from Oyeyemi down the line before it became their own.
Justice Bada said: “It is evident that there is a serious contradiction in the case of the claimants as to the children or direct issue(s) of Oyeyemi. Which one is correct? Did Oyeyemi actually have a child or children? The implication of Oyeyemi having children as against a child is very clear in that, if he had children, then claimants have decided to suppress their names.
“In my view, the claimants cannot be granted a declaration of title/statutory right of occupancy to the land that does not exclusively belong to them.” Justice Bada further held that the trial judge ought to have made a finding of fact on whether Oyeyemi actually had children, adding that where a finding of fact was not made on a crucial issue like this, an appeal would be allowed.
On whether the appellants were customary tenants on the disputed land, Justice Bada stated: “I do not think so because a party who alleges another to be customary tenants, must plead the incidence of customary tenancy.
