–
HARRIET O. ILORI AND OTHERS
V.
CHIEF AKINLOLU OLOTO
WEST AFRICAN COURT OF APPEAL HOLDEN AT LAGOS, NIGERIA
8TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 1941
2PLR/1941/45 (WACA)
OTHER CITATION(S)
2PLR/1941/45 (WACA)
(1941) VII WACA PP. 154 – 155
LEX (1941) – VII WACA PP. 154 – 155
–
BEFORE THEIR LORDSHIPS:
BAKER, J.
BROOKE, J.
JEFFREYS, J.
–
BETWEEN:
HARRIET O. ILORI AND OTHERS – Respondents
AND
CHIEF AKINLOLU OLOTO – Appellant
–
REPRESENTATION
P. Oddie — for Appellant
E. J. Alex Taylor and J. E. David — for Respondents
ISSUE(S) FROM THE CAUSE(S) OF ACTION
REAL ESTATE AND PROPERTY LAW — LAND:- Claim to set aside sale of land attached under writ of Fi. Fa. and sold by public auction — Question of tenure — Claim to title based on long and undisturbed occupation
–
CASE SUMMARY
The land situated at Ebutte Metta and forming part of the area granted in 1868 for use of the Egba Refugees was attached under a writ of Fi Fa issued out of the Supreme Court and it was not shown that the father of the plaintiffs was the actual holder of a “Glover Ticket” in respect of the plot or what the tenure was.
–
DECISION OF THE WEST AFRICAN COURT OF APPEAL
Held:- Appeal dismissed.
The Court following previous decisions agreed with the trial Judge that it would be inequitable to disturb an occupation which had not been challenged for eighty years.
Akpan Awo v. Cookey Gam, 2 N.L.R. 100 followed.
–
MAIN JUDGMENT
The following joint judgment was delivered:-
BAKER, BROOKE, AND JEFFREYS, J.J.
This is a claim by the plaintiffs to have set aside the sale of a piece of land situated at Ebute Metta forming part of the area granted to the Governor in 1868 for the use of the Egba refugees. The land was attached under a writ of Fieri Facias issued out of the Supreme Court on a judgment given in Suit No. 333 of 1931 as the property of the Oloto family, and sold by public auction. The Court was not satisfied that the father of the present plaintiffs was the actual holder of a ticket in respect of the plot but found that the family have been in actual possession for nearly eighty years and gave judgment for the plaintiffs.
The argument of counsel for the appellant before this Court was that the land was originally granted “for the use of” and that as there had been no adverse possession (or if any only since 1929) the land belonged to the third defendant and could be attached. The Statement of Claim says – “the children became seised in fee simple” but no attempt has been made to show what the tenure is though terms were used which suggested incidents of the tenure of family land.
Counsel for the appellant stated that customary law had not been invoked and that there is in this case no question of the reversion. Were it found to be held as family land the matter would stop there but it has not, and counsel carefully avoided the question of tenure. The confusion existing with regard to titles to land within this area is notorious but the Courts have for a considerable number of years upheld claims to a title based on long and undisturbed occupation therein.
Previous judicial decisions have recognised the title of the occupiers of these plots and we can only agree with the trial Judge following the decision in the case of Akpan Awo v. Cookey Gam page 100 Vol. 2 of the Nigeria Law Reports, that it would not be equitable to disturb an occupation which has not been challenged for eighty years.
The appeal is accordingly dismissed with costs assessed at twenty-three guineas.
–