CASE TITLE: OLAGUNJU & ORS v. ADEIFE (2026) LPELR-84392(CA)
JUDGMENT DATE: 1ST JULY, 2026
PRACTICE AREA: LAND LAW
LEAD JUDGMENT: FADAWU UMARU, J.C.A.
SUMMARY OF JUDGMENT:
INTRODUCTION:
This appeal borders on declaration of title to land.
FACTS:
This is an appeal against the judgment of the High Court of Ogun State, Abeokuta Judicial Division, coram O. Ogunfowora J., delivered on 27th July 2021
The Respondent commenced an action against the Appellants, seeking declarations that he was the lawful holder of statutory rights of occupancy over two parcels of land covered by Certificates of Occupancy issued in 1986, as well as orders for possession, perpetual injunction, and damages for trespass. He asserted title to the disputed land on the strength of the said Certificates of Occupancy.
In response, the Appellants filed a statement of defence and counterclaim, contending that the disputed land belonged to the Olagunju Family of Ekandayo Village and seeking a declaration of entitlement to a statutory right of occupancy over the land, together with a perpetual injunction restraining the Respondent from interfering with their possession and enjoyment thereof.
Following the exchange of pleadings, the parties adduced oral and documentary evidence in support of their respective claims. At the conclusion of the trial, the trial Court entered judgment in favour of the Respondent and dismissed the Appellants’ counterclaim.
The Appellants were dissatisfied with the decision and therefore filed this appeal.
ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION:
The Court determined the appeal on the following issues:
1. Whether the trial High Court was right to hold in his appreciation of Exhibit A that the land being claimed by the Claimant (Respondent) is the same land being claimed by the Appellants (Defendants) despite the Respondent’s failure to provide a clear description of the land in his pleading, which is a fundamental flaw in the Respondent’s claim.”
2. Whether the Respondent, in the presentation of his case, adduced proper and consistent evidence (oral and documentary) in identifying the exact size and location of the lands sought in his claims.
DECISION/HELD:
The appeal was dismissed.
RATIOS:
- ACTION- COUNTER-CLAIM: Whether a counterclaim is a separate and independent action; duty of a party to prove his counterclaim
- LAND LAW- IDENTITY OF LAND: Need for identity of a land to be ascertained
- LAND LAW- IDENTITY OF LAND: Whether wrong description/mis-description of land in dispute is fatal where parties know the land
- LAND LAW- CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY: Whether oral assertions can prevail over a duly issued Certificate of Occupancy as proof of title to land
- LAND LAW- DECLARATION OF TITLE TO LAND: Duty of a claimant/plaintiff in an action for declaration of title to land
To read the full judgment or similar judgments, subscribe to Prime or Primsol
