CASE TITLE: ADEGORIOLU & ORS v. SULE & ANOR (2026) LPELR-83645(CA)
JUDGMENT DATE: 13TH APRIL, 2026
PRACTICE AREA: LAND LAW
LEAD JUDGMENT: EBIOWEI TOBI, J.C.A.
SUMMARY OF JUDGMENT:
INTRODUCTION:
This appeal borders on Land Law.
FACTS:
This appeal is against the judgment of the High Court of Ogun State sitting at Ota in Suit No. HCA/4/2013, delivered by the learned trial Judge on the 30th day of April 2014.
The facts culminating in this appeal disclosed a dispute between the parties over ownership, possession, and title to a parcel of land situate along Akoore road, off Igbesa Atan Ota in Ogun State. The Respondents’ case at the trial Court was that the land in dispute was purchased by their late father, several decades ago and that following the said purchase, their family had been in long, open, peaceful, and undisturbed possession thereof. According to them, acts of ownership had been exercised over the land continuously for many years without challenge until the Appellants began to assert competing claims and to interfere with their possession.
The Respondents therefore commenced the action by writ of summons accompanied by a Statement of Claim, wherein they sought declarations of title to the land, injunctions restraining trespass, and other consequential reliefs. In the pleadings filed, they pleaded that their father acquired the land by purchase from one Madam in or about the year 1941 and that a written agreement evidencing the transaction existed. They further pleaded acts of possession spanning several decades, including farming, and other acts consistent with ownership.
Upon service of the originating processes, the Appellants entered appearance and filed a Statement of Defence and Counter-claim which was subsequently amended. In their defence, they denied the Respondents’ claim of ownership and contended that the land formed part of their family land. They asserted that the Respondents were customary tenants or persons permitted to occupy the land and that no valid sale or transfer of title was ever made. By way of counter-claim, they sought declaratory and other reliefs to affirm their own title.
Pleadings were thereafter duly exchanged between the parties. The Court accepted the Respondents’ case, found that Exhibit A evidenced a sale of the land to the Respondents’ father, and held that the Respondents had established acts of ownership and possession over a long period of time. The Court consequently granted the declaratory and injunctive reliefs sought and entered judgment in favour of the Respondents and the claims for declaratory and injunctive reliefs in respect of the parcel of land in dispute were granted in their entirety. By the same judgment, the counter-claim filed by the present Appellants were struck out. Being dissatisfied with the whole of the said decision, the Appellants filed a Notice of Appeal.
ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION:
The appeal was determined on the following issues:
1. Whether the procedure adopted by the learned trial Judge in suo motu determining the competence of the Appellants’ counter-claim and striking it out without affording the Appellants an opportunity to be heard constitutes a breach of the Appellants’ right to fair hearing.
2. Whether the learned trial Judge was right to accept and act on evidence of the Respondents’ witness which was not supported by the pleadings and ought to have been expunged.
3. Whether the learned trial Judge ought to have granted a declaration of title in favour of the Respondents who failed to establish the root of their title.
4. Whether the learned trial Judge was right in concluding that the Respondents’ father bought the land in dispute without evaluating Exhibit A, which formed the basis of that conclusion.
5. Whether the learned trial Judge erred in relying on and basing the judgment on pleadings that had been withdrawn and struck out.
DECISION/HELD:
The appeal was dismissed for lacking merit.
RATIOS:
- ACTION- PLEADINGS: Effect of evidence not based on/at variance with pleadings and pleadings not supported by evidence
- COURT- RAISING ISSUE(S) SUO MOTU: Whether a Court can raise an issue suo motu and determine it without hearing parties; distinction between raising an issue suo motu and looking into the case/file by the Court to determine a matter
- EVIDENCE- ESTOPPEL PER REM JUDICATAM/RES JUDICATA: Doctrine of res judicata
- EVIDENCE- PROOF OF TITLE TO LAND: Whether a party who fails to prove his pleaded mode of acquisition of title to land can have recourse to other pleaded ways of proving title to land
- LAND LAW- DOCUMENT OF TITLE: Duty of Court where a party relies on production of document of title to prove his title
- PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE- COURT PROCESS(ES): Whether a Court can make use of or take judicial notice of process(es) that was withdrawn and struck out
To read the full judgment or similar judgments, subscribe to Prime or Primsol
