LAGOS STATE URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY v. CHIEF GANIYU ARIORI BALOGUN OKOLO & ANOR (2010)

LAGOS STATE URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY v. CHIEF GANIYU ARIORI BALOGUN OKOLO & ANOR

(2010)LCN/4133(CA)

In The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

On Tuesday, the 14th day of December, 2010

CA/L/888/08

RATIO

INTERPRETATION OF STATUTE: INTERPRETATION OF SECTION SEC 219 (1) OF EVIDENCE ACT 1990 & SEC 227 (1) OF THE EVIDENCE ACT 1990 AS IT RELATES WHEN A WITNESS IS SUMMONED TO PRODUCE A DOCUMENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT AND WHETHER THE WRONGFUL ADMISSION OF EVIDENCE CAN BE A GROUND FOR THE REVERSAL OF ANY DECISION IN ANY CASE

By Section 219 (1) Of Evidence Act 1990 it says. “A witness, subject to the provisions of Section 220 of this Act, summoned to produce a document shall, if it is in his possession or power, bring it to court, notwithstanding any objection which there may be to its production or to its admissibility and the validity of any such objection shall be decided by the court. As earlier observed in this judgment, there was no objection at the trial court as to claimants witness No 4 producing a document before the trial Court. Section 227 (1) of the Evidence Act 1990 has this to say; “The wrongful admission of evidence shall not of itself be a ground for the reversal of any decision in any case where it shall appear to the Court on appeal that the evidence so admitted cannot reasonably be held to have affected the decision and that such decision would have been the same if such evidence had not been admitted”. I find it pertinent to say at this juncture that the PRELIMINARY and COMMENCEMENT portions of the Evidence Act 1990 provides that that document is an Act to provide for the Law of Evidence to be applied in all judicial proceedings in or before Courts in Nigeria. This is distinct from any Rules of Court which is an enactment of the House of Assembly of a State. These rules are guides for the courts and its provisions are meant to be obeyed, but subject to the provisions in the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 and the rules of Evidence. For good measure, Order 32 Rule 16 of the High Court of Lagos State (Civil Procedure) Rules provides for witnesses under subpoena and their attendance in court. It says inter alia ” A party may by subpoena ad testificandum or duces tecum require the attendance of any witness before an officer of the court or other person appointed to take the examination, for the purpose of using his evidence upon any proceeding in the cause or matter in like manner as such witness would be bound to attend and be examined at the hearing or trial.” These provisions do not say that such a witness should comply with the Provisions of Order 32 Rule 2 (2) (a)of the High Court of Lagos State (Civil Procedure) Rules. May I say that the cumulative effect of the provisions above reproduced narrow an issue such as this to the exercise of the courts’ discretion, and in so doing, the prevailing circumstances become utterly relevant in the exercise of such discretion. PER RITA NOSAKHARE PEMU, J.C.A.

ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE: WHETHER THE TEST FOR THE ADMISSIBILITY OF AN EVIDENCE IS RELEVANCE

In considering admissibility of any evidence, oral or documentary, the test remains “relevance”. If it is relevant its admissible and the court is not concerned with how the evidence was obtained. See Section 6 of the EVIDENCE ACT 1990. TORTI v UKPABI 1984 1 SCNLR 274. ACB vs GWAGWALADA 1994. 5 NWLR pt 342. 25 at 27. PER RITA NOSAKHARE PEMU, J.C.A.

SUBPOENED WITNESS: WHETHER A SUBPOENED WITNESS HAS TO DEPOSE TO A WRITTEN STATEMENT ON OATH

A court or tribunal can suo motu call for any evidence which, it believes can iron out the creases in any matter. A subpoened witness, by the very nature of his call, does not have to depose to a written statement on oath. I do not think that it is the intention of the drafters of the Rules of court to destroy the land marks of our jurisprudence relating to evidence. PER RITA NOSAKHARE PEMU, J.C.A.

WRITING OF JUDGMENT: WHETHER THERE IS A METHOD TO BE FOLLOWED IN WRITING JUDGMENT

There are no hard and fast rules as to how a judgment should or should not be written, as any judge has his own style of writing judgment. What the law enjoins and expects is that the reasons for the decision must be stated in the judgment and there must be no misdirection. PER RITA NOSAKHARE PEMU, J.C.A.

BURDEN OF PROOF: WHETHER THE BURDEN OF PROOF IN A CLAIM FOR TITLE TO LAND IS ON THE PLAINTIFF

The law is elementary, that in a claim for title to land, the plaintiff has the burden of proof to establish his claim, and must file pleadings and lead credible oral and documentary evidence in support of his claim. PER RITA NOSAKHARE PEMU, J.C.A.

OWNERSHIP OF LAND: WAYS OF PROVING OWNERSHIP OF LAND; WHETHER A CLAIMANT IS EXPECTED TO RELY ON MORE THAN ONE ROOT OF TITLE IN A CLAIM OF OWNERSHIP OF LAND FOR HIM TO SUCCEED

Decidedly, there are five ways to prove ownership of land and the law requires a party to prove only one of the five ways of establishing ownership of land. Once he does, no further proof is required – see BALOGUN v AKANJI 1988 1 NWLR part 70 at 301. The five ways are (1) Traditional evidence of traditional history. (2) Documents of title which are duly authenticated in the sense that due execution must be proved. (3) By acts of ownership, so numerous and positive enough to warrant the inference that the party was the true owner of the land. (4) Any acts of long possession and enjoyment of the land. and (5) By proof of possession of connected or adjacent land in circumstances that render it probable that the owner of such connected or adjacent land would be the owner of the rand. see ADEBO v OMISOLA 2005 2 N W L R. pt 909 at 749; ADEWUYI v ODUKWE 2005. 14 N W L R pt 945 at 473; MDANI v BOSI 2006. II NWLR Pt 991, 400. Decidedly, a claimant is allowed in law to rely on more than one root of title in a claim of ownership of land. see BALOGUN v AKANDE 2005 to NWLR pt 933.394. PER RITA NOSAKHARE PEMU, J.C.A.

JUSTICE

RAPHAEL CHIKWE AGBO Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

OLUKAYODE ARIWOOLA Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

RITA NOSAKHARE PEMU Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

Between

1. LAGOS STATE URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY
2. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF LAGOS STATE.Appellant(s)

AND

1. CHIEF GANIYU ARIORI BALOGUN OKOLO
(The Balogun Okolo of Lagos)
2. ALHAJI BASHIRU KARIMU JENMI
3. ALHAJI NURUDEEN BABATUNDE JAWANDO
4. ALHAJI FATAI AYILARA
5. MR. ADENIYI ADESINA
(suing for and on behalf of the entire Balogun Okolo family)Respondent(s)

RITA NOSAKHARE PEMU, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): This is an appeal against the decision of the High Court of Lagos State contained in the judgment of his Lordship H. A. O. Abiru delivered on 7th day of May, 2007 in suit No LD/504/2005 BETWEEN CHIEF GANIYU ARIORI BALOGUN OKOLO & 5 ORS (on behalf of the entire Balogun of Okoto family of Lagos) AND LAGOS STATE GOVERNMENT URBAN RENEWAL BOARD & ANOR.
In that suit, the Appellants herein were the Respondents while the Respondents herein were the claimants at the lower court, simply put, the facts of this case is that the Appellants herein were the Respondents at the Court below while the Respondents were the Claimants.
The Respondents/Claimants commenced Suit No. LD/504/2005 by way of writ of summons claiming the reliefs as adumbrated at pages 3-5 of the Record of Appeal. The claimants has filed an amended statement of claim and same was amended pursuant to order of the lower court on the 2nd of November, 2006. It is of fifteen paragraphs. In paragraph 15 thereof, the Claimants had claimed.
1. A DECLARATION that the piece or parcel of land described as situate, lying and being at Balogun in the Crown Grant dated 10th October, 1866 as No. 41, Volume 2C/G of the Register of Deeds kept at Lagos State Lands Registry forms part or portion of ALL that piece or parcel of land contained in Survey Plan SEW/L/1797/12X dated 24th of April, 2005 drawn by M.A. SEWEJE, a Licensed Surveyor,
2. A DECLARATION that the Claimants are the persons entitled to the grant of Statutory Right of Occupancy of all that piece or parcel of land situate and being at Ita Balogun and which is more particularly described in Survey Plan No. SEW/L/1797/12X dated 24th April, 2005 and drawn by M.A. SEWEJE Licensed Surveyor.
3. POSSESSION of the said land.
4. AN ORDER of Perpetual Injunction restraining the Defendants, their Servants, Agents and privies from further disturbing in any manner whatsoever the peaceable possession of the said land by the land by the Claimants family.
The facts of the case are reflected on the paragraphs in the amended Statement of Claim vide Pages 161-163 of the Record of Appeal.
At the Trial, the Claimants called three witness and tendered four exhibits while the Defendants called one witness.
Written address were ordered by the Court below which were consequently filed and adopted. Judgment was delivered on the 7th of May, 2007 in which the learned trial Judge gave Judgment in favour of the Claimants, granting all the reliefs sought in the action.
The Defendants, being dissatisfied with the said Judgment, wielded their Constitutional right by filing a notice of appeal in consonance with the Practice Direction of this Honourable Court. The said notice of Appeal is reflected at Pages 327-332 which was filed on the 19th of June, 2007.
The said notice of appeal has in its kitty six grounds of appeal.
The Appellants filed their brief of argument on the 2nd of July, 2008 while the Respondents filed their brief of argument on the 26th of March, 2009.
The Appellants had, in arguing their appeal in his brief of argument proffered six issues for determination, They are:
(1) Whether the failure by the Respondents/Claimants to file written deposition of the Claimants witness No 4 is contrary to Order 32 Rule 1 of the High Court of Lagos State (Civil Procedure) rules 2004(issue 1 is distilled from Ground 1.)
(2) Whether the adoption of the final written addresses on 7th of May, 2007, without considering the written reply filed by the appellants/defendants on the same date i.e 7th of May, 2007 regates principle of fair hearing (issue 2 is gleaned from ground 2).
(3) Whether the Claimants led credible evidence showing the exercise of acts of ownership and possession on the disputed land which were positive and sufficient over a reasonable long period of time as to presume the Claimants owners (issue 3 is distilled from Ground 3).
(4) Whether by the preponderance of evidence the land in dispute was within the boundaries of land comprised in the 1951 scheme in Notice No. 377 (issue 4 is of gleaned from Ground 4).
(5) Whether there was uncertainty on the identity of the land in dispute and that the land covered by the crown grant registered as No 41/41/2CG fell within the land in dispute ( issue 5 is distilled from Ground 5).
(6) Whether the Claimants/Respondents led credible evidence to support their claim of ownership of the land in dispute (issue 6 is distilled from Ground 6)
On their part, the Respondents adopts the issues for determination as framed by the Appellants in their brief of argument.
I have taken a cursory look at the grounds of Appeal from which six issues were distilled and painstakingly perused the arguments advanced by the respective Counsel in their briefs of argument.
Order 32 of the High Court of Lagos State (Civil Procedure) Rules 2004 deals with ‘EVIDENCE” generally. The Appellants had argued vehemently that the Claimants’ witness No. 4, Surveyor Olatunbosun’s failure to file a written deposition of his statement nullifies these proceedings.
They referred this Court to Order 3 Rule 2(1) of the High Court of Lagos State (Civil Procedure) Rules which has this to say.
ORDER 3 Rule 2 (i) “All civil proceedings commenced by Writ of Summons shall be accompanied by
(a) Statement of Claimant
(b) List of witnesses to be called at the trial.
(c) Written statements on oath of the witnesses and
(d) Copies of every document to be relied on at the trial.
By order 3 2(2) it says
“Where the Claimant fails to comply with Rules 2 (i) above, his originating process shall not be accepted for filing by the Registry.
Now by Order 32 Rule 1 (a) of the High Court of Lagos State (Civil Procedure) Rules it says.
“Real evidence shall be tendered during the trial”
Order 32;2 (i) and (2) has this to say.
Order 32; 2(i) “A Judge may, at or before the trial of an action, order or direct that evidence of any particular fact he given at the trial in such manner as may be specified by the order or direction.
Order 32 ;2(2) The power conferred by sub-rule 1 of this rule extends in particular to ordering or directing that evidence of any particular fact be given at the trial.
(a) by statement on oath of information or belief.
(b) by the production of document or entries in books
(c) by copies of documents or entries in books; or
(d) in the case of a fact which is or was a matter of common knowledge either generally or in a particular district, by the production of a specified newspaper which contains a statement of that fact”
( underlined by me)
Let me quickly state here, that from records, the complainants, list of witnesses named THREE WITNESSES (see page 164 of the Record of Appeal). They are
(1) ALHAJI NURUDEEN BABATUNDE JAWANDO
(2) MARCELLIN AUGUSTINE SEWEJE and
(3) FASASI ISMAIL
The claimants’ 4th witness was not listed. This is because, from records, he was on SUBPOENA.
At Pages 184 and 185 of the Record of Appeal a seal, writ of SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM was on behalf of the claimants issued and directed to one surveyor D. O. Olatunbosun of office of the surveyor General of No 133, Obafemi Awolowo Way, Ikeja, Lagos State, returnable on the 16th of October, 2006. It is dated 22nd of November, 2006.
The actual subpoena flowing from above is dated 23rd November, 2006.
It is pertinent that I reproduce verbatim the subpoena dated 22nd November. 2006.
FORM 29
“Subpoena duces Tecum
(0.32, R. 21)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF LAGOS STATE
IN THE LAGOS JUDICIARY DIVISION
suit No. LD/504/05
BETWEEN:
CHIEF GANIYU ARIORI BALOGUN OKOLO & 5 ORS – CLAIMANTS
AND
LAGOS STATE GOVERNMENT URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY & 2 ORS-DEFENDANTS
TO SURVEYOR D. O. OLATUNBOSUN of Office of the Surveyor-General, 133, Obafemi Awolowo Way, Ikeja – Lagos.
You are commanded in the name of the Governor of Lagos state to attend before the Honourable Justice H. A. O ABIRU Court at Igbosere High Court, Lagos on Wednesday, 6th day of December, 2006 at the hours of 9 O’clock in the forenoon and so from day to day until the above case is trued, to give evidence on behalf of the claimants and also to bring with you and produce at the time and place aforesaid the following:-
1. Surveyor General’s Letter dated 14th day March, 2006 Reference No. OSG 154/VOL.3/06/07 with the attached documents and Lagos Island Map with street Network showing the storm clearance Route as contained in Gazette No. 13 of March, 1951.
DATED THIS 23rd DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2006”
The said Subpoena, from records was served on Surveyor Olatunbosun on the 29th of November, 2006. Reference pages 185 & 187 of the Record of the Appear.
On the 6th day of December, 2006, when this matter came up before the learned trial judge H. A. G. ABIRU .J, Otunba Segun Oladitan with him Mr. Dibu appeared for the Claimants, while E. O. Akande Esq appeared for the Defendant.
For purposes of elucidation, I deem it proper to reproduce part of the proceedings of that day.
“OTUNBA Oladitan The subpoenaed motion is present and we are ready to proceed”.
TRIAL CONTINUES
CW 4: My name is Dani Oluremi Olatunbosun. I am the Deputy surveyor General in the office of the surveyor General of Lagos state. The office of surveyor General was subpoene by the claimant and this is why I am in court. It is correct that my office was ordered by the court to interpose and complete some documents and to prepare a composite plan depicting the reality position of lands as denoted on the survey plan. We comment on para and prepared a technical report and prepared an antiphoto maps devilry the parties of the land.This is the request. OTUNBA OLADITAN: we want to tender the report and the antiphoto map. MR. AKANDE: We have no objection.
Court: Request dated the 14th March, 2006 and antiphoto map are admitted as evidence and marked as Exhibit C.9″ ( Reference page 270 of the Record of Appeal).”
At page 271 of the Record of Appeal, the evidence continued and indeed the Defendants’ counsel Mr. Akande cross-examined the claimants, 4th witness. (see Pages 271 -272 of the Record of Appeal).
The undisputed fact is that the claimant’s witness 4 was subpoened to produce a document in this case at the lower court. This automatically places him, in my view, in a different category from the Claimants’ witnesses 1, 2, & 3 regarding the need to file a written deposition on oath.
Did the High Court of Lagos State (Civil Procedure) Rules make provisions for subpoened witnesses? It seems to me that the answer is in the affirmative. But section 2 of the said rules has this to say.
“Where a matter arises in respect of which no adequate provisions are made in the rules, the court shall adopt such procedure as will in its view to substantial Justice between the parties concerned”.
I dare say that the Lagos State (Civil Procedure) Rules are subsidiary to the rules of Evidence that regulate the courts’ procedure and a fortiori, the provisions of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria which remain the grundnorm of our body polity”.
IN TEWOGBADE V. AGBABIAKA 2001 5NWLR Part 705.
Page 38 at 43 Ratio 7, it was held that by virtue of section 192 of the Evidence Act 1990, a witness called merely to produce a document under a subpoena duces tecum (as in this case) need not be sworn if the document either requires no proof or is to be proved by other means and if sworn unnecessarily he cannot be cross examined.

By Section 219 (1) Of Evidence Act 1990 it says.
“A witness, subject to the provisions of Section 220 of this Act, summoned to produce a document shall, if it is in his possession or power, bring it to court, notwithstanding any objection which there may be to its production or to its admissibility and the validity of any such objection shall be decided by the court.
As earlier observed in this judgment, there was no objection at the trial court as to claimants witness No 4 producing a document before the trial Court.
Section 227 (1) of the Evidence Act 1990 has this to say;
“The wrongful admission of evidence shall not of itself be a ground for the reversal of any decision in any case where it shall appear to the Court on appeal that the evidence so admitted cannot reasonably be held to have affected the decision and that such decision would have been the same if such evidence had not been admitted”.
I find it pertinent to say at this juncture that the PRELIMINARY and COMMENCEMENT portions of the Evidence Act 1990 provides that that document is an Act to provide for the Law of Evidence to be applied in all judicial proceedings in or before Courts in Nigeria.
This is distinct from any Rules of Court which is an enactment of the House of Assembly of a State. These rules are guides for the courts and its provisions are meant to be obeyed, but subject to the provisions in the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 and the rules of Evidence.
For good measure, Order 32 Rule 16 of the High Court of Lagos State (Civil Procedure) Rules provides for witnesses under subpoena and their attendance in court. It says inter alia
” A party may by subpoena ad testificandum or duces tecum require the attendance of any witness before an officer of the court or other person appointed to take the examination, for the purpose of using his evidence upon any proceeding in the cause or matter in like manner as such witness would be bound to attend and be examined at the hearing or trial.”
These provisions do not say that such a witness should comply with the Provisions of Order 32 Rule 2 (2) (a)of the High Court of Lagos State (Civil Procedure) Rules.
May I say that the cumulative effect of the provisions above reproduced narrow an issue such as this to the exercise of the courts’ discretion, and in so doing, the prevailing circumstances become utterly relevant in the exercise of such discretion.

In considering admissibility of any evidence, oral or documentary, the test remains “relevance”. If it is relevant its admissible and the court is not concerned with how the evidence was obtained.
See Section 6 of the EVIDENCE ACT 1990. TORTI v UKPABI 1984 1 SCNLR 274. ACB vs GWAGWALADA 1994. 5 NWLR pt 342. 25 at 27.

Assuming the failure to file a sworn witness statement of the claimants witness No 4 amounts to an irregularity (which I am of the view it does NOT) Order 5 Rule 1 (2) of the Lagos State (civil procedure) Rules has this to say,
“Where at any stage in the course of or in connection with any proceedings there has by reason of anything done or left undone been a failure to comply with the requirements as to time, place, manner, or form, the failure shall be treated as an irregularity and may not nullify such step taken in the proceedings. The Judge may give any direction as he thinks fit to regularize such steps”
The result is that this argument of issue 1 by learned counsel for the Appellant is grossly misconceived and holds no water.
The claimants witness No 4, was to the knowledge of the Defendant on subpoena and as such did not have to in Law fire a witness statement on oath. The Defendant/Appellant did not object at the trial court as to his competence to produce a document. The Defendants counsel in fact cross examined claimants witness No 4. and by this; he had waived his right to complain anyway.
I therefore hold that the failure of the Respondents claimant to file a written deposition of the claimants witness No. 4 does not contravene the provisions of order 32 Rule 1 of the High court of Lagos state (civil procedure) Rules 2004. Issue 1 is therefore resolved in favour of the Respondents.
Regarding Issue 2, it is my view that the very fact that the learned Trial judge accepted the written reply filed by the Appellants/ Defendants is sufficient. Same was adopted on the same date. By his acceptance of same, he has, in my view not breached any provisions regarding fair hearing, nor denied the appellants/defendants the right to fair hearing.
How, may I ask did learned counsel for the appellants/defendants know that the learned trial judge did not peruse the written reply?
with respect , it is not the function of this hallowed court to force a trial judge to read all the addresses submitted before it before he writes his judgment. He has a discretion (and an unfettered one), in the matter.
The Appellants/Defendants have not exhibited how the judges error (if any) affected the decision of the court and what prejudice it has occasioned the appellants.

Learned counsel for the Appellants/Defendants has not said that the learned trial Judge was biased, neither has he shown to the satisfaction of this court that the views expressed in the said judgment of the Learned Trial Judge are wrong or perverse.
The consequence is that Issue 2 is also devoid of merit and same is resolved in favour of the Respondents.
I shall take issues 3, 4, 5, & 6 together as they essentially dear with the same thing.
The Claimants/Respondents at the lower court, claim in paragraph 15 of the amended statement of claim dated 2/11/2006.
(a) A DECLARATION that the piece or parcel of land described as situate, lying, and being at Balogun in the crown Grant dated 10th October, 1866 as No 41, page 41, Volume 2C/G of the Register of Deeds kept at Lagos state Lands Registry, forms part or portion of the ALL that piece or parcel of land contained in survey plan SEW/1797/12x dated 24h of April, 2005 drawn by M. A. SEWEJE, a Licensed Surveyor.
(b) A DECLARATION that the claimants are the person entitled to the grant of statutory Right of occupancy of all that piece or parcel of land situate, and being or Ita Balogun and which is mere particularly described in Survey Plan No.SEWL/1797/12X dated 24th of April, 2005 and drawn by M. A.
SEWEJE Licensed Surveyor.
(c) Possession of the said land.
(d)AN ORDER of Perpetual Injunction restraining the Dependants, their servants, Agents and privies from further disturbing in any manner whatsoever the peaceable possession of the said land by the Claimants, family.

In MARTCHEM IND. NIG LTD v M. F, KENT (WA) LTD 2005 5 SC. (Pt.11) 138 Edozie JSC (as he then was) observed that it is an elementary principle that averments in the pleadings are no evidence and cannot be so construed, such averments must be powered by evidence subject of course to admission by the other party. see NKUMA v ODILI 2006 2 – 3 sc 96 Thus, a mere averment in pleading proves nothing at all if it is not supported by evidence, unless it is admitted by the opposite side. see ADEPONLE v. SAIDI 1956 1 FC 79 at 80 From records, the claimants/Respondents had in support of their case tendered Exhibits “C1”, “C2” “C3” “C4” “C5” “C6” and “C7” while the Defendants/Appellants tendered Exhibits “D1” and “D2” respectively.
Exhibit “C1” is a plan No.SEW/L/1797/12 dated 18th November, 1987 showing property at Balogun Square Lagos, Lagos State said to belong – Okolo Balogun Chieftaincy family
(The Claimants/Respondent in this appeal). It was prepared by M. A. SEWEJE & ASSCIATES, 12 Badan Street, Surulere and signed by M. A. SEWEJE as principal.
On Exhibit “C1” is stamped thus _ “THIS LAND FALLS OUTSIDE GOVERNMENT ACQUISITION” Exhibit “C2” is the Certified True Copy of correct and true copy of a Crown Grant dated 10th October, 1866 registered as No 41 at Page 41 in volume 2 C/G of the Registrar of Deeds kept at the Lagos 1868 State Lands Registry, Lagos, Nigeria, It is dated 18th February, 2005 and signed by the Registrar of Titles.
On Exhibit “C2”, the following is instructive.
“KNOW ALL MEN by these presents, that I Charles George Edward Patey Rear Admiral in Her Majesty’s Royal Navy and Administration of the Government of the Island and Territories of Lagos having by Commissioner appointed for that purpose, duly investigated the claims set forth by Mahommadu Akeola to a piece of land situate Ita Balogun and measuring front near Balogun Square One hundred and six feet, Rear Seventy Five feet, East side, Seventy Feet and West side, sixty five feet do hereby grant and assign to the said Mahommadu Akeola, his Heirs, Executors Administrators and assigns for ever the above specified piece of land.
As witness my hand under the Great seal of the Colony, this tenth day of October. 1866.
(Signed) Chas. G. E, Patey,
Rear Admiral
Administrator.
I do hereby certify, that I have this 16th day of October, 1866 received a Grant under the great Seal of this Settlement, of which the above is a true copy.
(Sgd) Arabic Signature
Signature of Mahommadu Akeola
WITNESS.
(Sgd) S. Witkey
(Sgd) Thos. A. Fowler”
Exhibit “C3” is a plan No SEW/L/1797/2/A dated 28th February, 2005 and prepared by M. A. Seweje & Associates and signed by M. A. Seweje as Principal. In this the area claimed by Okolo Balogun chieftaincy family is that area verged RED. It is now developed as market stalls. The Area covered by Crown grant is the area that is verged GREEN. Exhibits “C 4- is Plan No SEW/L/1797/12X dated 24th April, 2005 prepared by M. A. Seweje.
On Exhibit “C 5” which is plan No SEW/L/1797/12X/A, dated 22/5/06 M. A. Seweje observed that Exhibit “C5” supersedes Exhibit “C4”. A cursory look at Exhibit C5 shows that same supercedes Exhibit C4 according to the claimants No 4 witness, who drew Exhibit C5 in his capacity as a surveyor, on Exhibit C5, the area claimed by the Okolo Balogun family (the Respondents in this appeal) is that verged red, while the area covered by the crown grant is verged green.
Exhibit “C6” is a letter dated 6th August, 2004 with reference No TPD/001/03/773/13, addressed to Balogun Okoto chieftaincy family c/o Alhaji N. B. Jawando 53, Balogun Street,43, Ikorodu Road Jibowu, Lagos.
It is headed RE-RETRIEVAL OF BALOGUIN SQUARE MARKET FROM TRESPASSERS IN ORDER TO ERECT OUR IGA BALOGUN OKOLO OF LAGOS.
The said letter is written by the Lagos state Government Urban Renewal Authority, with Mrs. S. T. Adewunmi, secretary to the Authority signing for the General Manager.
I hereby reproduce the body of the contents of that letter verbatim.
“…………..I have been directed to refer to your letter on the above subject matter and to state that the Balogun Square does not fit into the description of the land being claimed by the Balogun Family as per the copy of the Crown Grant submitted by the family.
2. For the purpose of clarity, I am to state that the Balogun Family land is described as near the Balogun Square and not the square itself.
3. Thank you for your co-operation.
Signed
Mrs. S. T. Adewunmi
Secretary to the Authority
For: General Manager.”
Exhibit “C 7”, is the Lagos Island map with street Network, and on it is the area verged BLUE as the Central Lagos Land (Acquisition) Edict 1975 Gazette No, 15. Vol, 8 of 24h April, 1975.

Decidedly, there are five ways to prove ownership of land and the law requires a party to prove only one of the five ways of establishing ownership of land. Once he does, no further proof is required – see BALOGUN v AKANJI 1988 1 NWLR part 70 at 301.
The five ways are
(1) Traditional evidence of traditional history.
(2) Documents of title which are duly authenticated in the sense that due execution must be proved.
(3) By acts of ownership, so numerous and positive enough to warrant the inference that the party was the true owner of the land.
(4) Any acts of long possession and enjoyment of the land.
and (5) By proof of possession of connected or adjacent land in circumstances that render it probable that the owner of such connected or adjacent land would be the owner of the land. see ADEBO v OMISOLA 2005 2 N W L R. pt 909 at 749; ADEWUYI v ODUKWE 2005. 14 N W L R pt 945 at 473; MDANI v BOSI 2006. II NWLR Pt 991, 400.
Decidedly, a claimant is allowed in law to rely on more than one root of title in a claim of ownership of land. see BALOGUN v AKANDE 2005 to NWLR pt 933.394.

The law is elementary that where there is a contest on whether a parcel of land described in a document or shown on a survey plan fell within the land in dispute, the parties must prepare a COMPOSITE PLAN to resolve the issue, as the courts have always underscored the necessity of such a PLAN in such circumstances. See BITAS v SULEIMAN 1973 All. NLR. pt 2 at 282; BANKOLE v PELU 1991. 8 NWLR Pt 277, 523.

Now, in Paragraph 1 of the claimants amended statement of claim which was amended by order of court on the 2nd of November, 2006, as reflected at page 161 of the Record of Appeal. The Claimants averred thus “the Claimants are the descendants of Chief Mahommadu Akeola, the late
Chief Balogun Okolo of Lagos who was the original owner of the land situate, lying and being at Ita Balogun, Lagos which land is more particularly described and delineated in Survey plan No SEW/L/1797/12x dated 24th day of April 2005 drawn by M. A. SEWEJE, a Licensed Surveyor.”
In Paragraph 6 it had this to say
” The Claimants aver that by a Crown Grant dated 10th October, 1866 and Registered as No 41 at Page 41 in Volume 2 C/G of the Register of Deeds Kept at the Lagos State Lands Registry a substantial portion of the land, the subject matter of this suit was assigned by then Administrator of the Government of Island and Territories of Lagos to Chief Mahommadu Akeola the then Balogun Okolo of Lagos.
Paragraph 7
“The Claimants aver that apart from the land described and pleaded in paragraph 6 above Chief Mohammdu Akeola used other adjoining land without let or hindrance from any quarters until his death in 1896 when his descendants inherited the land, the subject matter of the suit.”
A painstakingly look at the statement of Defence of the 1st and 2nd Defendants as reflected at Pages 66 – 67 of the Record of Appeal, it seems to me that they have been unable to dislodge these facts in the aforementioned paragraphs in their statement of defence save to say that the portion of land now in dispute is nor within land granted to the Claimants by the Crown Grant.
But in paragraphs 7 of the claimants statement of claim, they had stated that chief Mohammadu Akeora who had been granted that land since 1866 used other adjoining land without let or hindrance from any quarters until his death in 1896. (a period of one hundred and twelve years before this suit was instituted at the lower court in 2008).
The defendants/Appellants have only tendered Exhibits D1 & D2.
These are not composite plans, Exhibit “D1” is a gazette dated 15th March, 1951. In Government Notice No 347 on Exhibit “D1”, it talks about the framing of central Lagos slum clearance scheme and states the boundaries of the area comprised in the scheme.
In BANKOLE v. PELU 1991 6 LRCN 1915 it was held that it is the duty of a Plaintiff to file a composite plan. Ipso facto a Defendant needs a composite plan in order to meaningfully set up its own case. see ELIAS v. SULEIMAN 1973. 1 ANLR Pt. 2 Page 288. In this case, the onus of proof to produce a composite plan was held to be on the Defendants because and only because the trial Judge had found that the lager land in dispute claimed by the plaintiffs to belong to them had in fact been properly conveyed to them by the landowners.
Applying the dicta in THOMAS v. PRESTON HOLDER 1946. 12. WACA 78.
“Where the plaintiff traces his title directly to one whose title to ownership has been established it is not necessary that he should prove such acts of ownership. If his title has been established then the ONUS is upon the Defendant to show that his own possession is of such a nature to oust that of the original owner”,
This the Defendants have failed to do in this case.
with respect, I do not know what this scheme which was, framed in 1951 means. Is it an acquisition Notice? Did it affect the area in dispute? These questions remains unanswered by the Defendants/Appellants Exhibit D2 is a photocopy of a photograph of Balogun Square in 1887.
With respect, This exhibit explains nothing by way of title to the rand in dispute in favour of the Defendants/Appellants. There is nothing on Exhibit D2 to show that the land in dispute belongs to them.
There is nothing to show that the land in dispute and the adjoining one which the claimants had possessed for a long period of time(since 1886) without let or hindrance was ever compulsorily acquired by the Defendants/Appellants or any Government for that matter.
The Claimants/ Respondents have in my view proved ownership of the land in dispute not only through customary grant but has shown that they have had peaceable possession of the adjoining area as shown in Exhibit c5 and in law by section 746 of the Evidence Act 1990. The courts have interpreted the provisions of this section in land matters to mean that where a person has, in exercising acts of ownership and possession over a parcel of land which are positive and sufficient over a reasonable long period of time, there is a presumption of ownership in favour of that person and he would be adjudged the owner unless shown otherwise by the other party. see ONUBRUCHERE v ESEGINE 1986. 1 NWLR Pt 19 799. OKHUAROBO v AIGBE 2002. 9. NWLR Pt 771. 29.
The tendering of Exhibits D1 & D2 was just a feeble attempt by the Defendants/Appellants to debunk the assertion of the Claimants/Respondents that they are the owners of the land in dispute. i.e the land covered by the crown Grant and indeed the adjoining portion of land as reflected in Exhibit C5.
At Page 265 of the Record of Appeal is reflected the amended written statement on oath of 1st Claimants witness dated 2nd November, 2006.
He is ALHAJI NURUDEEN BABATUNDE JAWANDO – a Sixty five years old retired civil servant. He provided the traditional history regarding the land in dispute.
He is a descendant of Mahommadu Akeola the original owner of the land the subject matter of this suit, who was the Balogun Okolo of Lagos during the reign of Oba Akintoye. According to him, when Mahommadu Akeola died intestate all his belongings devolved on his children and their offspring who are divided into four(4) branches namely:- AWUSETU, AMINA ALLI and SULE. C. W. 7 is the head of the AWUSETU branch.
I deem it pertinent to reproduce some paragraphs of his written statement on oath which constitutes his evidence at the trial in the lower court. These paragraphs are paragraphs 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 15, 16, 17, 18 and 19, (at pages 266 – 267 of the Record of Appeal).
PARACRAPH 5
” On the 10th dayofOctober, 1866 the then Administrator of the Island and Territories of Lagos THROUGH A CROWN GRANT Registered at Page 41 as no 41 in Volume 2 C/G of the lands Registry assigned a portion of the land, subject matter of this suit to Mahommadu Akeola”
PARAGRAPH 6 “Apart from the land described in the Crown Grant, Mohammadu Akeola made
use of all the adjoining land and the whole lot is what is referred to as Ita Balogun. Throughout his life and until his death he was never challenged over the ownership and possession of the land”.
PARAGRAPH 7
“Our progenitor first used the land as his SLAVES spot. During the reign of Oba Akintoye when slave trading was abolished he used the land for his horses stable. It was because of his ownership, possession and control that the land has been referred to as Ita balogun since then till date”.
PARAGRAPH 8 “The said Mohammadu Akeola our progenitor desired to build Ita Balogun on the said piece of land but he could not before he died. He however left words that the land should be used to build a palace.”
PARAGRAPH 9
“There were fundamental disagreements among family members as to the succession rights to the stool. This made the stool vacant and impossible for the palace to be built on the land”
PARAGRAPH 10
“After the demise of Balogun Okolo ( our progenitor) the land the subject matter of this suit has remained in our possession and under the central of the Balogun Okolo family.
PARAGRAPH 11
“In 1987 the family commissioned M. A, Seweje and Associates to carry our a survey on the land. The Surveyors produced a survey Plan No SEWL/1797/12 dated 18th day of November 1987 and drawn by M.A SEWEJE Licensed Surveyor.”
PARAGRAPH 15
“On the 6th day of August, 2004, in reply to several letters of the family, the first Defendant wrote to say that the land the subject matter of this suit does not fit into the description of the grant earlier referred to and that the Claimants land is described as near Balogun Square and not the Square itself.”
PARAGRAPH 16
“It is this land that was the point that is referred to as Ita Balogun from which Balogun Street, West, Balogun Street (East) and Balogun Square(street) took their names”.
PARAGRAPH 17
“Since more than a century and a half that our progenitor acquired the land, it has remained in family possession without anybody ever challenging the authority or ownership of the family. The land has never been acquired from the Balogun Family.”
PARAGRAPH 18
“The family has now united to build a Palace in accordance with the wish of our progenitor”.
PARAGRAPH 19
“During the pre-trial conference the Honourable court ordered the Surveyor General of Lagos State to establish the location of the property in dispute and submit his report to Court”.
These facts have not been controverted. The third Claimants’ witness, FASASI ISMAIL at Page 258 of the Record of Appeal in his statement, had this to say in Paragraphs 2,3,4 and 7. I hereby reproduce same verbatim.
PARAGRAPH 2
“I know the land, the subject-matter of this suit, I know the land very well because No. 12, Bishop Street, now Yisa Williams Street/Lagos Island where I lived between 1944 and 1984 was very close to the land, From my childhood days the land has always been called ITA BALOGUN because it has always belonged to the Balogun Okolo family who were in possession and exercised all rights of ownership on the land”.
PARAGRAPH 3
” As a child I was aware that members of the Balogun Okolo family were responsible for granting permission to people for the use of the land”.
PARAGRAPH 4
“At various times the land was used as market, playing ground praying ground and various other uses. The Balogun Okolo family representatives used to collect rents and fees from the different users”.
PARAGRAPH 7
“To the best of my knowledge from my childhood till date no one has ever challenged the authority or ownership of the Balogun Okolo family on the land”,
Again, these facts have remained uncontroverted. Collecting rents from tenants on land, granting people permission to use land are clearly acts of possession, particularly when there rights have been exercised unfettered over a long period of time; indeed over a decade as was in the present case.
At page 279 of the Record of Appeal is the 1st and 2nd Defendants witness written statement on oath. He is Adesoji Lawrence Ogunsanya, a Town Planner and in the service of the Lagos State Government.
In paragraph 5 of this statement he had this to say
“The land covered by crown grant registered as No 47 of Page 47 in volume 2C/G is quite different from the dispute land’.
In paragraph 6 he had this to say
“Since 1887 the Government had established her presence and in fact made use of the dispute land, which was then used for public gathering meeting public square, I have seen the document, it is photocopy of the picture is attached as Annexed AA1”.
Again in Paragraphs 12, 13 and 14, he had this to say
PARAGRAPH 12
“I am aware that government represented by the 1st Defendant vehemently rejected the claim of the claimants because the land falls within the acquisition of 1951 and not within the land granted to the Claimant by the Crown Grant.”
PARAGRAPH 13
“The disputed land is not part of the land released to the claimant by the Crown Grant aforementioned.
PARAGRAPH 14
“The Government representing by the 1st & 2nd Defendants have been in possession of the disputed land for many years without any disturbance from anybody until the Claimants came up with this suit”.
Now, apart From the mere ipse dixit of the Defendants, there is no evidence cogent enough to buttress this assertion.
They had tendered Exhibits Dl and t2 respectively which prove nothing, as earlier observed. The exhibits have no probative value neither are they credible.
At page 257 of the Record of Appeal, Marcellan Augustine Seweje i.e Claimants 4th witness did say under Cross examination on 21/11/2000 that he made his conclusion that the land was not under Government acquisition because all acquisition are normally gazetted.
He went on to say that all land was free in Lagos unless Government acquisition is shown”.
These evidence of both parties, answer to Issues 3, 4, and 5. On a preponderance of evidence, the Claimants/Respondents have, in my view proved ownership of the land in dispute (i.e the land verged red and green as reflected on Exhibit C5) by traditional history evidence tracing their root to Mohammadu Akeola, a fact which remain uncontroverted by the Defendants/Appellants.
Also they have proved long possession and enjoyment of the land, as they collected rents on the land, used same as praying ground and market ground over a long period of time spanning a decade. IN PARI DELICTO POTIOR EST CONDITIO POSSIDENTIS (The portion of the possessor is best).
In ALHAJA SILIFATU OMOTAYO AND CORPORATIVE SUPPLY ASSOCIATION, delivered by the supreme court of Nigeria on Friday, the 19th day of July, 2010 in suit No. S.155/2002/unreported. It was held inter alia that the attitude of an appellate court is to be slow to interfere with such decision of a trial court. They also observed, citing AJUWON & ORS v ADEOTI MADAM 1990, 2 NWLR Pt 132 at 271 at 290; (1990.) 3 SCNJ, 159 and NWOKE & ORS v OKERE & ORS 1994 5 NWLR (pt 343.) 159. 1994 5 SCNJ 102) that “the attitude of an Appellate court in respect of a case from the trial court is whether substantial Justice has been done looking at the proceedings as a whole”
The supreme court added “There is the presumption that a person having title to the land in dispute is in possession” and that” it is now firmly established that where two persons claim to be in possession of land in dispute, the law ascribes possession to the one with better title.”
It is my view that in this present case, the learned trial judge clearly comprehended the entire facts from the evidence (both oral and documentary) at his disposal and came to the conclusion which he did and rightly too!.
Putting the cases of the respective parties on an imaginary scale, the claimants/Respondents case is in my view weightier and more credible than that of the Defendants/Appellants. The Defendants/Appellants failure to file a composite plan is fatal to their case.
Learned Counsel for the Defendants/Appellants has contended that there are material contradictions in the evidence of C W 2 and C W 3. What are these contradictions? He left it to this Court to speculate and indeed go on a voyage of discovery. This Court resists such invitation vehemently. I however find no contradictions in the evidence of C W 2 and C W 3.
The result is that Issues 3, 4 and 5 are devoid of merit and are also hereby resolved in favour of the Respondents. Consequently the appeal fails in its entirety and same is hereby dismissed.
Accordingly the decision of the High Court of Lagos State contained in the Judgment of His Lordship H. A. O. Abiru delivered on the 7th day of May 2007 in suit NO. LD/504/2005 BETWEEN CHIEF GANIYU ARIORI BALOGUN OKOLO & 5 ORS AND LAGOS STATE GOVERNMENT URBAN RENEWAL BOARD & ANOR is hereby affirmed with N40,000.00 costs in favour of the Claimants/Respondents.

R.C. AGBO, J.C.A.: I have had the opportunity of reading in advance a copy of the lead judgment just delivered by RITA NOSAKHARE PEMU, JCA. And I agree with her reasoning and conclusions.

OLUKAYODE ARIWOOLA, J.C.A. I had the opportunity of reading the draft judgment of my learned brother, Pemu, JCA. I shall however make a brief comment, even if by way of emphasis.
On the issue whether the Respondent’s failure to file written deposition of the claimants witness No.4 is contrary to order 32 rule 1 of the High Court of Lagos state (civil Procedure) Rules 2004, the said rule reads –
“32(1)(1) Subject to these rules and to any enactment relating to evidence, any fact required to be proved at the trial of any action shall be proved by written deposition and oral examination of witnesses in open court”.
It is the argument of the Appellants that the Respondents did not file written statement of their witness No. 4, thereby failing to comply with the provisions and requirement of the Rules of Court, in particular, order 3 rule 2 sub rule 1(c) of the Lagos state High court (civil procedure) Rules, 2004.
Indeed, the Rules require that all civil proceedings commenced by writ of summons shall be accompanied by written statements on oath of the witness. Where a claimant fails to comply with sub-rule 1 of Rule 2 above, the Registry was not to accept the process for filing.
On the record of appeal, pages 1 – 5 show the writ of summons and statement of claim of the claimants at the trial court, accompanied by the list of claimants’ witnesses, written statements on oath of the said witnesses and copies of the documents relied on at the trial. There is no doubt that the requirements of Order 3 rule 2 sub-rule 1 were fully complied with, hence the Registry accepted the process for filing and the case eventually proceeded to hearing.
However, sometime during the cause of the trial after the pretrial had taken place and couple of applications were taken, and resolved, it became apparently necessary to bring an official of the Respondent to Court to give evidence and tender certain documents in their possession. Consequently, claimants processes were duly amended, hence the need for application for subpoena to bring one Surveyor D.O. Olatunbosun of office of the Surveyor – General, Lagos State to Court.
The claimants’ application for the subpoena duces tecum is at page 188 of the record. The subpoena issued under the hand of Presiding Judge and seal of the High Court is at page 185 of record. Subpoena duces tecum is an order of Court for a witness to appear and to bring specified documents, records or things to Court. See Black’s Law Dictionary, 8th Edition, page 1467. Clearly this was how Surveyor Olatunsobun became claimants witness No. 4. In the result, the testimony of Surveyor Olatunbosun as 4th claimants witness was properly taken and admitted by the Court. The Respondents simply misconceived the provisions of the Rules discussed above.
There is the main issue in this appeal and that is, whether or not the claimants led credible evidence to support their claim of ownership of the land in dispute.
The claimants had claimed for the followings;
A declaration that the piece or parcel of land described as situate, lying and being Ita Balogun in the Crown Grant dated 10th October, 1866 and registered as No. 41 at page 41 in Volume 2C/G of the Registered of Deeds kept at Lagos State Lands Registry forms part or portion of All that piece or parcel of land contained in the Survey Plan SEW/L/1797/12 dated 18th day of November, 1987 drawn by M.A. Seweje, Licensed Surveyor.
Possession of the said land and perpetual injunction.
There is no doubt, the title to the land in dispute is in issue. Five ways had long been established of proving title to land. The first way of proving ownership is by traditional evidence. Second is by production of documents of title duly authenticated and duly executed. Thirdly, by acts of ownership extending over a sufficient length of time numerous and positive enough as to warrant the inference of true ownership.
Fourthly, proof of possession of connected or adjacent land, in the circumstances rendering it probable that the owner of such connected or adjacent land would in addition be the owner of the land in dispute. See; D.O Idundun & Ors. v. Daniel Okumagba, (1976) 9 and 10 SC 227 at 248 (2002) 20 WRN 127 at 142 – 144, LLAC vol.1 page 177 at 190-199, Mogaji v. Cadbury Nig. Ltd. (2004) 23 WRN 54 at 116.
It is clear beyond doubt that the Respondents claim of title to the land in dispute is based on production of documents of title by which the land was granted to their ancestor. They pleaded, produced and tendered, inter-alia, the Crown Grant dated 10th October, 1866 by which their ancestor was granted the land in dispute by the administrator of the Government of the Island and Territories of Lagos, Rear Admiral Charles George Edward Patey.
There is no gain saying that for any such document produced as evidence of title to a parcel of land, it must be admissible in evidence and must be of such a character as to be capable of conferring valid title on the party relying on it.
See; Dodo Dabo Vs. Alhaji Ikira Abdulahi (2005) 7 NWLR (pt 923) 181, (2005) 29 WRN 1 at 28 and 36.
On reliance on production of document as evidence of title, the Supreme Court had observed as follows:
“But it does not mean that once a claimant produces what he claims to be an instrument of grant, he is automatically entitled to a declaration that the property which such an instrument purports to grant is his own. Rather, production and reliance on such an instrument inevitably carries with it the need for the Court to inquire into some or all of a number of questions including:
(i) whether the document is genuine and valid;
(ii) whether it has been duly executed, stamped registered; and
(iii) whether the grantor had the authority and capacity to make the grant;
(iv) Whether the grantor had infact what he purported to grant; and
(v) whether it has the effect claimed by the holder of the instrument.”
See; Romaine v. Romaine (1992) 4 NWLR (pt.238) 650 at 662, (1992) 5 SCNJ 25.
There is no doubt that the Appellants did not answer any of the above questions in the negative. Indeed, it was not their case that the document was not genuine and valid. It was not contended that it was not duly executed, stamped and registered. Neither was it their
contention that the grantor had no authority and capacity grant to make the grant. The question whether the grantor has infact what he purported
to grant did not arise being the Administrator of the Government of the entire colony and territories.
However, the only argument and controversy is whether the instrument of grant has the effect claimed by the Respondents. It was the Appellants contention that the instrument refers to “a piece of land situated at Ita Balogun and measuring front near Balogun square one hundred and six feet, Rear seventy-five feet, East side seventy feet and west side sixty-five feet” but does not cover the land in dispute.
Clearly from the record, Exhibit C3 shows a portion of land verged RED being the entire land in dispute, while a portion verged GREEN shows the land more than half of the entire land in dispute and being
covered by Exhibit C2 – the Crown Grant dated 10th October, 1866.
It is equally clear from the record that the Appellants never acquired the entire land in dispute or any portion thereof by public acquisition. Indeed, CW1 – a Registered Surveyor since 1963 under Cross-examination by the Appellants stated categorically that the land in dispute is not covered by any government public acquisition. At least no gazette to the effect that any such acquisition took place.
From the records, it is in evidence that the Grantee of the Crown Grant in Exhibit C2 from whom the Respondents inherited the land covered by the instrument had exercised acts of ownership extending over a sufficient length of time numerous and positive enough as to warrant the necessary inference of true ownership of the connected or adjacent land. Having successfully proved via the Crown Grant, Exhibit C2, the ownership and possession of the land covered by the said instrument, it necessarily follows that it will be right to conclude that the adjacent or connected land shown in Exhibit C3 being the remaining portion outside the one verged GREEN but within the area verged RED belongs to the Respondents ancestor and therefore are entitled as of right to the grant of statutory Right of occupancy of all that piece or parcel of land situate and being at Ita Balogun, which is more particular described in survey plan No. SEW/L/1797/12x dated 24th April, 2005 drawn by Surveyor M.A. Seweje – Licenced Surveyor.
For the above reason and more detailed reasons given in the lead judgment, I am in agreement entirely with the reasoning therein and the conclusion arrived thereat in the said lead judgment. The appear being unmeritorious is liable to and is hereby accordingly dismissed by me.
I abide by the consequential orders including order of costs.
>