Essence of the Doctrine of Acquiescence

CASE TITLE: OTUEDON v. OFOR (2024) LPELR-62650 (SC)
JUDGMENT DATE: 12 JULY 2024
PRACTICE AREA: LAND LAW
LEAD JUDGMENT: CHIOMA EGONDU NWOSU-IHEME, J.S.C.

SUMMARY OF JUDGMENT:

INTRODUCTION:

This appeal borders on the offences of conspiracy and armed robbery.

FACTS:

This is an appeal against the judgment of the Court of Appeal sitting in Benin delivered on the 12th day of April 2019.

The Appellant claimed at the trial Court that he was the head and accredited representative of the Prince Otuedon family of Ugbolokposo Town. The Appellant’s claim against the Respondent was that sometime in November 2013, during a routine check on his family land at Ugbolokposo, he discovered that the Respondent and his workmen and privies had trespassed on a portion of his family land. All efforts to stop the Respondent and his privies from further trespassing proved abortive. He then filed a claim at the High Court of Delta State, claiming as follows:

​1. A Declaration that the piece of land lying and situate along Uti Road, Ugbolokposo, close to the DSC Express Road by DPR Warri – Staff MPCS Filling Station more particularly measuring approximately 460.932 Square Meters where the Defendant built upon and Is carrying out business thereon belongs to the Prince Otuedon family of Ugbolokposo.

2. A Declaration that any conveyance, title, or interest obtained thereon by the Defendant from any person(s) whatsoever without the consent and approval of the Claimant is void ab initio amongst others.

Issues were raised, and the matter went to trial. The learned trial Judge, in a considered judgment, dismissed the case of the Appellant in favour of the Respondent.

The Appellant, dissatisfied with the judgment of the trial Court, proceeded to the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal affirmed the decision of the trial Court. The Appellant, dissatisfied with the judgment of the Court of Appeal, appealed to the Supreme Court.

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION:

This appeal was determined based on a sole issue as follows:

“Whether the lower Court properly evaluated the evidence led at trial in coming to the conclusion that the Appellant failed to establish his case according to law and therefore, was not entitled to the reliefs sought.”

DECISION/HELD:

In the final analysis, the appeal was dismissed.

RATIOS:

• ACTION- PLEADINGS: Whether pleadings constitute evidence; effect of pleadings not supported by evidence
• APPEAL- INTERFERENCE WITH CONCURRENT FINDING(S) OF FACT(S): Instances where the Supreme Court will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact(s) made by Lower Courts
• EQUITABLE DEFENCES- ACQUIESCENCE: Essence of the doctrine of acquiescence
• EVIDENCE- BURDEN OF PROOF/ONUS OF PROOF: On whom lies the burden of proof in civil cases?
• LAND LAW- COMMUNAL LAND: Proof of communal ownership of land
• LAND LAW- LACHES AND ACQUIESCENCE: Instances when a party will be caught by equitable doctrine of laches and acquiescence

To read the full judgment or similar judgments, subscribe to Prime or Primsol