A CASE TITLE: Akindele v. Kuranga (2026) LPELR-84110(CA)
JUDGMENT DATE: 10TH JUNE, 2026
PRACTICE AREA: LAND LAW
LEAD JUDGMENT: BIOBELE ABRAHAM GEORGEWILL, J.C.A.
SUMMARY OF JUDGMENT:
INTRODUCTION:
This appeal borders on land law.
FACTS:
This is an appeal against the judgment of the High Court of Ogun State, Ota Division, Coram: E. A. Fabamwo J, delivered on 28/8/2020.
By a Writ of Summons, the Appellant, as Claimant, before the trial Court claimed against the Respondent, as Defendant, the following reliefs, namely:
The Claimant claims that he is the one entitled to the statutory rights of occupancy over the piece and parcel of land situate, lying and being at along off Ijoko Ota/Agbado Road, Itoki, Ijoko Lemode Village, Ifo/Ota Local Government Area now known as Ifo Local Government Ogun State measuring approximately 7 plots covered by survey Plan No: AAT/OG/026/84.
Damages for trespass
Perpetual injunction restraining the defendant; his agents, servants, privies or otherwise howsoever from continuous trespass on the Claimant land at along off Ijoko Ota/Agbado Road, Itoki, Ijoko Lemode Village, Ifo/Ota Local Government Area now known as Ifo Local Government Ogun State measuring approximately 7 plots covered by survey Plan No: AAT/OG/026/84. See pp. 1 – 2 and 129 – 132 of the Record of Appeal.
On the one hand, according to the Appellant he is the owner of the land in dispute having purchased same from his vendor, one Mr. Michael Sonde, the then Baale of Ijoko Lemode, which land he claimed had encroached upon and trespassed into by the Respondent, resulting into the inability of the Appellant to have access to his land because of the structures built on the land in dispute by the Respondent, hence the claim against the Respondent before the lower Court. On the other hand, according to the Respondent, he is the owner of the land in dispute, having bought the same from his vendor, the Abraham Olayanju family, in 1976.
The parties filed and exchanged pleadings, and at the close of pleadings, the matter proceeded to trial. At the close of the hearing, the trial Court delivered its judgment, in which the claims of the Appellant, as Claimant, against the Respondent, as Defendant, were dismissed, hence this Appeal.
ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION:
The Court considered a sole issue, thus:
“Whether the lower Court rightly dismissed the case of the Appellant by not properly evaluating Exhibits CW1 – C1, CW2 – C2, and CW1 – C3 to know that it was not legally possible for the Respondent to have bought land in a non – existing State or Local Government as he claimed via Exhibit DW1A, and that the Appellant was never a party to the Suits instituted and prosecuted by the Respondent?”
DECISION/HELD:
The Court dismissed the appeal.
RATIOS:
EVIDENCE- TRADITIONAL EVIDENCE/HISTORY: What a party relying on traditional history is expected to plead and prove to establish his root of title; effect of failure of a party to prove same
JUDGMENT AND ORDER- JUDGMENT OF COURT: The use of a previous judgment of court given in respect of a land suit
LAND LAW- ROOT OF TITLE: Duty of a claimant to prove the title of his vendor where the title of predecessor in-title is in issue
LAND LAW- TRESPASS TO LAND: Who can claim damages/maintain an action for trespass to land
LAND LAW- IDENTITY OF LAND: Whether identity of land in dispute can be put in issue via address of counsel; how to dispute identity of land
LAND LAW- SURVEY PLAN: Position of the law on subsequent production of a survey plan earlier used/tendered in a previous suit
To read the full judgment or similar judgments, subscribe to Prime or Primsol
In this article