Chief Francis Adewale Onafowokan v. Chief Wasiu Shopitan

This appeal queries the rightness of the judgment of the Court Of Appeal, Ibadan Division (hereunder addressed as “the lower Court”), coram judice K. B. Akaahs, M. D. Muhammad and C. N.Uwa, JJCA, in Appeal No. CA1/40/2006, delivered on the 3^rd April, 2008. In its decision, the lower court set aside the judgment of the High Court of Ogun State (the trial court), in Suit No. HCS/22/2004, Delivered on the 31^st May, 2005, wherein O. 0. Majekodunmi, J. Non-suited the appellant.

P.1

A précis of the material facts of the case, which transformed Into the appeal, are disobedient to complexity. The appellant Asserted that in 1982, he, through Pa Shopitan, purchased a parcel Of land iying and being at Shagamu Road in Poolo village, Ogijo, Ogun State from the Oluye family through the head and Accredited representatives of the family. The Oluye fanmily issued Him with a purchase receipt and certificate of grant and put him in Possession of the land. Subsequently, the respondent, the Baale Of Poolo, encroached on the land without any justifiable cause.

Sequel to that, the appellant beseeched the trial court, via a writ of Summons and a statement of claim, filed on the 20^th February, 2004, wherein he tabled against the respondent the following Reliefs:

1. An order of this court declaring that The defendant validly acquire(sic) From the Oluye family the property Measuring 3,630.057 square metres Situated and lying at Shagamu Road Otherwise called old Lagos/lbadan Road Poolo Road Ogijo Ogun State

And which is particularly delineated in The survey plan No. G. 1264 of 31^st July, 1982.

2. An order of this court declaring that The plaintiff is therefore entitled to be Granted Certificate of Occupancy by The Ogun State Government, on the Said land.

3. An order of this court declaring that The Defendant trespassed on the land When he entered it and sold portions Of it to unknown persons without the Acknowledge and consent of the Plaintif.

4. An order of court setting aside the Purported sale by the defendant of Portions of land and declaring any title Acquired from such sale as being null And void.

5. An order of perpetual injunction Against the defendant, his agent, Privies, whosoever or however called From further tres pass on the land or Dealing with it in any manner that is Adverse to the plaintiff title.

6. An order of this honourable court Granting the plaintiff N3.67 million asSpecial and general damages on Account of the destruction of the Plaintiff’s fence and stealing of his Materials at the site.

P.2

As expected, the respondent, upon service on him, joined Issue with the appellant and denied liability by filing a statement of Defence wherein he counter-claimed against the appellant for the Following reliefs:

1. N5,000,000.00 as damages for Trespass when the plaintiff without the Consent, knowledge and or authority of defendant’s family particularly the Folukan branch of the Oluye family Entered the said families land situated And being on the Folukan family and Efunukan branch of Oluye family land Along Shagamu/lkorodu Road, Poolo, Ogijo and committed various acts of Wanton destruction of economic Crops planted thereon by members of The said families.
2. Perpetual injunction restraining the Plaintiff his, heirs, agent, servant and Privies from counting(sic) trespassing On the said land.

Following the discordant claims, the trial court had a full-Dressed determination of the case. In proof of the case, the Appellant fielded two witnesses, PW1 and PW2, and tendered Exhibits A-D. In disproof of the case, the respondent called two Witnesses, DW1 and DW2. At the closure of evidence, the parties, Through their respective counsel, addressed the trial court in a Manner allowed by law. In a considered judgment, delivered on The 31^st May, 2005, reflected at pages 109 -133 of the record, the Trial court non-suited the appellant and dismissed the counter-Claim.

The appellant was dissatisfied with the judgment. Hence, on The 21s June, 2005, the appellant launched an eleven-ground Notice of appeal, lying between pages 134 – 144 of the record, before the lower court. The lower court heard the appeal. In a Considered unanimous judgment, delivered on the 3^rd April, 2008, Found at pages 184 – 210 of the record, the lower court set aside the order of nonsuit and dismissed the appeal.

P.3

The appellant was peeved by the decision. Consequently, on the 11h June, 2008, the appellant lodged a three – ground notice of appeal, copied at pages 213-215 of the record. Later on, the Appellant, with the leave of this court, filed an amended notice of Appeal on the 23^rd October, 2020 but deemed properly filed on the 28^th October, 2024, hosting three grounds, wherein he prayed for:

1. An order allowing the appeal.

2. A declaration that the plaintiff appellant has established on a preponderance of Evidence that he has a better title than the defendant/respondent and therefor He is entitled to judgment.

3. An order overruling the lower court and Declare that the transaction as Witnessed, ratified and delivered by Pa. Shopitan (the defendant/respondent’sUncle) and the entire Oluye family Through the accredited representatives And signatories to exhibit B and C is Unimpeachable.

5. A declaration that the plaintifl appellant Was in possession from 1982 and that The unathorised entry on the land by the Defendant/respondent in 1997 shortly After becoming the Baale of the area in Issue is an act of trespass and Subsequently it is a continuing trespass.
6. An order awarding damages as per the Statement of claim for the act of Trespass.

Thereafter, the parties, through their counsel, filed and exchanged Their respective briefs of argument in line the procedure regulating The hearing of civil appeals in this court. The appeal was heard on The 28^th October, 2024.

1. 4

During its hearing, learned counsel for the appellant, Noah Abdul, Esq., adopted the amended appellant’s brief of argument, Filed on the 23^rd October, 2020, and the appellant’s reply brief of Argument, filed on the 23a October, 2024, both deemed properly Filed on the 28^th October, 2024, as representing his arguments for The appeal. He urged the court to allow it. Similarly, learned Counsel for the respondent, Prof. A. G. Adaralegbe, adopted the Amended respondent’s brief of argument filed on the 4^th September, 2024 but deemed properly filed on the 28^th October, 2024, as constituting his submissions against the appeal. He urged The court to dismiss it.

In the amended appellant’s brief of argument, learned counsel Distilled two issues for determination, to wit: () Whether the Court below was right to Have held that the appellant did not Prove title to the land in dispute.

(ii) Whether the appellant was required to Prove title of Oluye family.

In the amended respondent’s brief of argument, learned Counsel crafted a single issue for determination, namely:

Whether having regard to the pleadings And totality of evidence led at the trial Court, the learned justices of the Court of Appeal rightly held that the appellant did not prove his case, to have entitled him to Judgment.

1. 5

A cursory look at the two sets of issues shows that they are Identical in substance. In fact, the respondent’s solitary issue can be, comfortably, subsumed under the appellant’s. For this reason of sameness, I will handle the appeal on the issues nominated by The appellant: the undisputed owner of the appeal.

Arguments on the issues

Appellant’s submissions:

Learned appellant’s counsel submitted that the law Recognises two distinct ways of selling land in Nigeria – sale under Customary law and English law. He relied on Folarin v. Duroyaye (1988) 1 NWLR (Pt. 70) 3511. He narrated the incidents of each.

He claimed that the transaction between the appellant and the Oluye family satisfied both methods. He described the events that Took place in the transaction. He insisted that the valid title was Granted to the appelant. He cited Temile v. Awani (2001) 5 MJSC 32. He stated the requirement for sale of family land. He referred To Alyeola v. Pedro (2014) 13 NWLR Pt. 1424) 409; Fayehun v. Dadola (2000) 6 NWLR (Pt. 661) 390; Teriba v. Adeyemo (2010) 11 NWLR (Pt. 121 1) 242. He maintained that the sale to the Appellant was valid. He asserted that payment of money and Possession, not written contract/conveyance, are necessary tor Sale under customary law. He relied on Ogunbambi v. Abowab (1961) 13 WACA 222; Adeanya v. Otuweu (1993) 1 NWLR (Pt. 270) 414. He noted that the appellant exercised acts of ownership and possession on the land and his evidence outweighed that of the respondent. He cited Mogaji v. Odofin (1979) 4-5 SC 65. He Observed that evidence of DVW1 and DW2 were replete with Contradictions and unreliable. He referred to Agbi v. Ogbeh (2005) 8 NWLR (Pt. 926)40. He posited that the findings of the Lower court were perverse and caused miscarriage of justice and Urged this court to interfer with them. He referred to Tsokwa Oil Marketing Co. Nig. Ltd v. BON Ltd (2002) 5 SC (Pt. II) 9.

P.6

He Explained the purposes of exthibit A – D and persisted that they Were improperly evaluated.

Learned counsel contented that in civil cases proof is upon Balance of probabilities through credible witness and admitted facts Need no proof. He relied on section 75 of the Evidence Act, 2011; Mogąji v. Odofin (supra). He opined that the respondent admitted the facts and evidence in the appellant’s case – that the land Belonged to Oluye family. He took the view that appointment and Removal of baales are acts of ownership and control of the land by Oluye family. He maintained that the respondent did not in his Statement of defence, categorically deny the averments in the Statement of claim even though the admission is not unequivocal.

He reasoned that the respondent’s statenment of defence and Evidence strengthened the appellant’s case. He cited Graham v. Esumah (1984) 11 SC 123.

Respondent’s cotentions Learned respondent’s counsel argued that the appelant failed To prove title under the customary law because he failed to plead and give evidence on the requirements of sale under customary Law, especially on the identity of principal members of Oluye family. He relied on Akpadiaha v. Elemosho (1964) 1 All NLR 154; Odekilekun v. Hassan (1997) 12 NWLR (Pt. 531) 56:; Achilihu v. Anyatonwu (2013) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1368) 256. He observed that the appellant was not at the meeting of Oluye family where the sale was discussed and could not testify to its composition and what happened. He described the incidents of sale under English law.

He cited Erinosho v. Owokorin (1965) NMLR 479. He stated that Exhibits B and C were unregistered instruments that could not Confer title but could only serve as acknowledgment of money paid and conferred equitable interest that could be enforced by specific Performance on the vendor to execute a formal conveyance. He Referred to Osagie v. Oyeyeinka (1987) 3 NWLR (Pt. 59) 144; Olowolaramo v. Umechukwu (2003) 2 NWLR (Pt. 805) 537; Agbola v. UBA Plc (2011) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1258) 375. He added that Exhibit C was inadmissible to prove title under section 16 of the

1. 7

Land Instruments Registration Law of Ogun State. He took the View that the appellant failed to prove exclusive possession and the burden never shifted to the respondent. He relied on Adesanya v. Otuewu (1993) NWLR (Pt. 270) 414.

Learned counsel posited that the parties joined issue on title To the land by Oluye family and the appellant was required to prove The root of title of the Oluye family. He cited Ogunleye v. Oni (1990) 2 NWLR (Pt. 135); Bamgboye v. Olusoga (1996) 4 NWLR (Pt. 444) 520; Aladev. Awo (1974) 5 SC 215. He canvassed the View that the appellant failed to discharge that burden of proof. He added that the Oluye family had no title to transfer to the appellant.

He insisted that exhibits B and C granted nothing to the appellant. He referred to Romaine v. Romaine (1992) 4 NWLR (Pt. 238) 650.

He asserted that the concurrent findings were not perverse for this Court to interfer with them. He relied on Olugbode v. Sangodeyi (1996) 4 NWLR (Pt, 444) 500; Shittu v. Egbeyomi (1996) 6 NWLR (Pt. 457) 650; Ejikeme v. Okonkwo (1994) 8 NWLR (Pt. 362) 266; Ojah v. Ogboni (1996) 6 NWLR (Pt. 454) 272.

On points of law, learned appellant’s counsel submitted, in the Alternative, that no member of Oluye family challenged the sale to the appellant made without principal members timeously. He cited Ejilemebe v. Opara (2003) 8 MJSC 188. He maintained that sale of land under customary law does not require written documents

P.8

For its validity. He referred to Gaji v. Paye (2003) 12 MJSC 76. He Stated that registration of exhibits B and C was unnecessary as the Transaction was under customary law and they were tendered as Evidence of a transaction between the parties. He cited Abdullahi V. Adetutu (2020) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1711) 338.

Resolution of the issues

In order to foreclose any tinge of ambiguity in the bipartite Issues, I will attend to them serially, one after the other. For this Reason, l will, without much ado, kick off with the consideration of Issue one. The kernel of the knotty issue, decipherable from the diametrically opposed stands of the feuding parties, is submissive to easy appreciation. It chastises the lower court’s wholesale affirmation of the trial court’s finding of the appellant’s non-proof of His claims. The vehement agitation of the appellant is that the lower Court disrespected the law in that he proved his title to the disputed Land under customary law. In this wise, the issue is a mild invitation to this court to navigate the forensic contours of alienation of family Land under the canopy of customary law within the expansive firmament of land law.

By way of a necessary prologue, it is important, for a proper comprehension of the issue, to highlight the import and Characteristics of customary law and disposition of land thereunder.

1. 9

In Oyewunmi v. Ogunesan (1990) 3 NWLR (Pt. 137) 182 T 207, Obaseki, JSC, defined customary law in these iluminating words.

The organic or living law of the indigenous People of Nigeria regulating their lives and Transactions. It is organic in that it is not Static. It is regulatory in that it controls the Lives and transaction of the community Subject to it. It is said that custom is a Mirror of the culture of the people.

Thus, custom connotes the way of life or set of rules or behaviour Of people in a particular society or locality see, Mashunwarenge V. Abdul (2003) 11 NWLR (Pt. 831) 403; Ogolo v. Ogolo (2003) 18 NWLR (pt. 852) 494; Kharie Zaidan V. Fatima Khail Mohssen (1973) 11 SC 1; Ohai v. Akpoemonye (1999) 1 NWLR (Pt. 588) 521; Pam v. Gwom (200) 2 NWLR (Pt. 644) 322. A Custom can be judicially noticed or proved to exist by direct credible evidence.

A custom is a question of fact to be proved by evidence save it is notorious or judicially noticed by the courts. The person asserting a particular custom is saddled with the herculean burden of proving it by dint of credible evidence of an independent witness. A custom is unenforceable if it offends the law, public policy and not in accordance with natural justice, equity and good conscience, see Sections 17 and 18 of the Evidence Act, 2011; Olagbemiro v. Ajagungbade l (1990) 3 NWLR (Pt. 136) 37; Ogolo v. Ogolo (2003) 18 NWLR (Pt. 852) 494; Olubodun v. Lawal (2008) 17 SC.267.2008 Obande Festus Ogbuinya NWLR (Pt. 115) 1; Kopek Const. Ltd v. Ekisola (2010) 3 NVWLR (Pt. 1182) 618; Orlu v. Gogo-Abite (2010) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1196) 307; Ojiogu v. Ojiogu (2010) 9 NVWLR (Pt. 1198) 1; Adekeye v. Adesina (2010) (Pt. 1324) 538; Olanrewaju v. Oyesomi (2014) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1418) 258.

1. 10

It is the rudimentary law, which dates from auld lang syne, that a valid alienation of land under customary law is concluded and sealed upon payment of a purchase price in the presence of named witnesses who witnessed the actual delivery/handling over of possession and ownership of the property by the vendor/grantor to a vendeelgranteej, see Cole V. Folani (1956) 1 FSC 66; Akpadiaha v. Elemosho (1964) 1 ALLNLR 154; Folarin v. Durojaiye (1988) 1 NWLR (Pt. 70) 351; Etajata v. Ologbo (2007) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1061) 554; Adedeji v. Oloso (2007) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1026) 133; Agboola v. UBA Plc (2011) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1258) 375.

There is no gainsaying the fact, decipherable from the Pleading and evidence on the binding record, the touchstone of the Appeal, that the appellant’s case is erected on his claim of Purchase of disputed land from the Oluye family. In other words, it Orbits around the grant of a family land from Oluye family. To start with, from its nomenclature and evidence on the record, Oluye is a Family. Etymologically, a fanily connotes: “1. A group of persons connected by blood, by affinity, or by law, especially within two or three generations. 2. A group consisting of parents and children. 3.

A group of people who live together and usually have a shared commitment to a domestic relationship”, see Bryan A. Garner et al, Ninth edition, Black’s Law Dictionary, (USA, West Publishing Co, 2004) page 679. A family, based on its connotation catalogued above, is a conglomeration of individual citizens.

1. 11

Thus, the law does not discriminate against a family of the right to own/hold land.

In Umeadi v. Chibunze (2020) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1733) 405 at 444, Peter-Odili, JSC, incisively, confirmed: by definition, family land is land which Vests in a group of persons and their Children. It could also refer to land which had vested upon individuals who have descended from a common ancestry or pedigree, and including, of Course, those Such as domestics and strangers who have been incorporated into the family by the founder. At the death of the founder, all the empty land, farm land and houses Acquired by him in his lifetime become Family property. In plain language, the land belongs to the family of the said founder as a corporate entity in which case they become inalienable… or they become distributable to the members of the founder’s family as defined by him during his lifetime.

1. 12

The cardinal principles of law that govern alienation of family land have been settled by this court. In Solomon v. Mogaji (1982) 11 SC 1, at 7 – 10, Bello JSC (as he then was) graphically, Proclaimed:

It is pertinent to point out that contentious sale of family land may be classified under three heads. Firstly, the law has been well settled that sale of family land by a member family, who is not the head of the family, without the consent of the head of the family is void. See Ekpendu v. Erika (1959) 4 F. S. C. 79 Oyebanji v. Okuwole (1968) N. M. L. R 221, Akerele v. Atunrase (1968)1 A. L. R. 201 and Lukan v. Ogunsusi (1972) 1 All N. L. R. (Pt. 2) 41…

Secondly, it is trite law that sale of family land by the head of the family without the consent of the principal members of the family is voidable. See Esan v. Faro 12 WACA, 135, Ekpende v. Erika (supra), Agaran v. Olushi (1907) 1 NLR 67 and Mogaji v. Nuga (1960) 5 F. S. C. 107….

The third category of contentious sale of Family land is where the head of the family sold family land as his own… without the knowledge and consent of the other members of the family.

P.13

Indubitably, the inelastic posture of the law, deducible from this ex cathedra authority that wears the insignia of finality, is that for an effective and valid disposition of a family land, the head of the family must consent. Any sale of family land by the principal members of a family which is bereft of the concurrence of the head of the family remains void ab initio. Where the head of the family disposes a family property without the agreement of the principal members of the family, then the sale is voidable, see Ekpendu v. Erika (1959) SCNLR 186; Kalio v. Woluchem (1985) 1 NWLR (Pt. 4) 610; Usiobaifo v. Usiobaifo (2005) 3 NWLR (Pt. 913) 665; Akayepe v. Akayepe (2009) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1152) 217; Teriba v. Adeyemo (2010) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1211) 242; Achilihu v. Anyatonwu (2013) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1368) 256. The stiff requirement of concurrence of the head and principal members of a family is justified in its ad infinitum existence. Thus, a family land belongs to a “vast family of which many are dead, few are living and Countless members unborn’, see Amadi Tijani v. Secretary to the Government of Nigeria (1921) 2 AC 399. No wonder the law alots to a family member the unbridled licence to sue and protect a family property against any wrong doer, see Ladejobi v. Oguntayo (2004) 18 NWLR (Pt. 904) 149; Mozie v. Mbamalu (2006) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1003) 466; Dadi v. Garba (1995) 8 NWLR (Pt. 411) 12;

1. 14

Babayeju v. Ashamu (1998) 9 NWLR (Pt. 567) 546; Odeneye v. Efunugu (1990) 7 NWLR (Pt. 164) 618.

In an abiding loyalty to the expectation of the law, I have visited the ancient and cold record- the soul of the appeal- at the Residence of the appellant’s pleading and parole evidence which Colonise pages 5 -9 and 66 – 75 thereof respectively. Have given them a clinical audit with the finery of a toothcomb.

Admirably, they do not harbour any woolliness in their significance. at once, perforce, I have married them, the pleading and viva voce Evidence, the barometer to gauge the proof or otherwise of the Appellant’s case, with the elements of proof of a valid alienation of a family land under the customary law displayed above. The raison D’etre for the juxtaposition is plain. It is to ascertain whether the Appellant’s case respected or flouted the mandatory requirements of sale of family land under the customary law.

It is gleanable from the record, the keystone of the appeal,that the appellant pleaded and offered oral testimony to establish Payment of money to the vendor, the Oluye family, in respect of the disputed land. Indeed, parol evidence galore that the appellant paid N18,000, plus a bottle of schnapps, for the grant of the disputed parcel of land (6 plots) to the Oluye family. Also, there were documents to that effect. Exhibit B was a purchase receipt

1. 15

Issued to him by the Oluye family. A receipt is a document that formally acknowledges the giving and receipt of an item, see Bello v. State (2020) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1710) 72. Exhibit C – certificate of grant – purports to transfer interest in the disputed property to the Appellant. It, therefore, fits squarely within the perimeter of an Instrument under the ambitious and clear provision of section 2 of the Land Instruments Registration Law of Ogun State (the Law), but it was not registered. The law is settled, beyond and peradventure of doubt, that any instrument which purports to transfer or extinguish any right, title or interest in land will not be Pleaded or admissible in evidence save it is, duly, registered in due obedience to the sacrosanct prescription of sections 16 of the Law, see Ogumbambi v. Abowab (1951) 13 WACA 22; Ojugbele v. Olasoji (1982) 4 SC 58; Akinola v. Solano (1986) 2 NWLR (Pt. 24) 58; Ogbini v. Niger Construction Ltd. (2006) 9 NWLR (Pt. 986)474; Nsiegbe v. Mgbemena (2007) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1042) 364; Akinduro v. Alaya (2007) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1057) 312; Alafia v. Gbode Ventures (Nig) Ltd. (2016) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1510) 116; Atandav. Comm., L. & H., Kwara State (supra); Oranzi v. A.-G., Rivers State (2017) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1561) 244; Atanda v. Comm., L. &H., Kwara State (2018) 1 NWLR (Pt. 1599) 32; Orlu v. Onyeka (2018) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1607) 467; Abdullahi v. Adetutu (2020) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1711) 338.

1. 16

Nevertheless, the law, in its magnanimity, allows such an unregistered registrable instrument to prove payment of purchase of money or rent and equitable interest which equitable interest is not amenable to any defeat by a legal title save for a purchaser for value without a notice of the prior equity, see Okey v. Dumez (Nig,) Ltd (1985)/NWLR (Pt. 4) 783 at 790; Ogunbambi v. Abowab (1951) 13 WACA 22; Nsiegbe v. Mgbemena (2007) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1042) 364; Agboola v. UBA Plc (2011) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1258) 256; Goldmaria (Nig.) Ltd. V. Ibafon Co. Ltd. (2012) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1308) 291; Gbadamosi v. Akinloye (2013) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1378) 455; Orianzi v. A. – G., Rivers State (2017) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1561) 224; Zaccala v. Edisa (2018) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1616) 528; Aderonpe v. Eleran (2019) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1661) 141; Mohammed v. Farmers Supply Co. (KDS) Ltd. (2019) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1701) 187; Abdullahi v. Adetutu (2020) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1711) 338. It stems from the Hallowed principles of law, chronicled above, that the two Documents, exhibits B and C served as concrete proof of the payment of money by the appellant to the vendor, Oluye family, over the disputed parcel of land. They, therefore, solidified the oral evidence on the payment of the purchase price for the land.

1. 17

In any event, the presence of the two documents, exhibits B and C, is superfluous. This is because documentation of transaction is an acknowledged stranger to customary sale of land, see Cole v Folami (1956) 1FSC 66; Kalio v. Woluchem (1985) NWLR (Pt. 4) 610. Nonetheless, it is a commonplace event Nowadays. The evolution of documentation of transaction under customary law owes its ancestry to the necessity to avert the dismal .

Consequence of insincerity of man vis-å-vis unwritten disposition of land under customary law. In the glaring absence of a written Document over sale of land under customary law, a purchaser of such a land, or his successor-in-title thereto, runs the high risk of losing it to an unscrupulous vendor, or his offspring, in future without any qualms. This is not only an erosion of the dwindling Integrity of man, but a debasement of the cherished virtues, ethos and values of our customary law. It is infra dig to human dignity.

The despicable act deserves to be aborted in its embryo! In all, the Appellant proved the ingredient of payment of purchase of money for the sale of the disputed parcel of land.

1. 18

In regard to the second ingredient, the finding of the lower Court, at page 196, lines 17 – 21 of the record, is handy. It is apropos to pluck it out whence it is domiciled in the record, thusly:

Nowhere did the appellant in these or even other paragraphs assert the names of the principal members of the Oluye family who Sold, witnessed the sale and delivery of the land in dispute which he claimed to have purchased from the said family to him.

I have given a panoramic view to the pleading and evidence on record, the hub of the appeal. There are pungent pieces of evidence which showcase that the grant was made during the reign of Pa Aregbe as the head of Oluye family. Contrariwise, I cannot fish out, even with the judicial lens of this apex court, where the appellant identified the witnesses to the alleged sale of the disputed land. Put bluntly, the appellant, in his infinite wisdom, starved the court of the names of the witnesses whose presence was a condition  qua non for a valid disposition of the disputed land to him. By the same token, the appellant, to the peril of his Case, hid and hoarded the identity of the principal members of the Oluye family whose consent was a desideratum to a valid transfer Of the disputed land by the Oluye family. This evidential faux pas occasioned corrosive impact on the validity of the alleged sale transaction conducted under the umbrella of customary law. The Net effect of the evidential lacunae is that the appellant failed woefully to prove these twin ingredients which are conditions-precedent for a valid sale of a family land under the customary law.

P.19

In the eyes of the law, a condition precedent is: “the one delays the Vesting of a right until the happening of an event”, see Atalegbe v.Awuni (1997) 9 NWLR (Pt. 525) 537 at 562, per Uwais CJN; Niger Care Dev. Co. Ltd. V. ASWWB (2008) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1093) 493; A. –G., Kwara State v. Adeyemo (2017) 1 NWLR (Pt. 1546) 210; Jumbo United Co. Ltd. V. Leadway Ass. Co. Ltd (2016) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1536) 439. The necessary evidence was in short Supply. The point must be emphasised that all the ingredients of sale of a family land under the sanctuary of customary law, calibrated above, must be satisfied concurrently by a purchaser Party in order to cloth the transaction with the deserved toga of Validity. They lower court’s finding, x-rayed above, inter alia, was in consonance with the pleading and evidence on record. I endorse it hook, line and sinker.

For the sake of completeness, the appellant, in a spirited bid to castrate the lower court’s decision, branded it with a badge of perversion. Since perversion is the cynosure of the point, it is Germane to exhibit its purport for a better appreciation of a discussion on it. A verdict of court is perverse when: it runs counter

To the pleadings and evidence before it, a court takes into account Matters it ought not to take into consideration, a court shuts its eyes to the evidence, a court takes irrelevant matters into account or it has occasioned a miscarriage of justice, see Udengwu v. Uzuegbu (2003) 13 NWLR (Pt. 836) 136; Nnorodim v. Ezeani (1995) 2 NWLR (Pt. 378) 448; Lagga v. Sarhuna NWLR (Pt.1114) 427; Onyekwelu v. Elf Pet (Nig.) Ltd. (2009) 5 BWKR (Pt. 1133)

1. 20

181; Momoh v. Umoru (2011) 15 NWLR Pt. 1270) 217; Ihunwo v. Ihunwo (2013) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1357) 550; Olaniyan v. Fatoki (2013) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1384) 477; Udum v. Umanah (No.1) (2016) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1526) 179; Adeokin Records v. M. C.S.N. (Ltd.) /GTE) (supra); Mamonu v. Dikat (2019 7 NWLR (PL. 1672) 495; MTN (Nig.) Comm. Ltd. V. Corporate Comm. Inv. Ltd. (2019) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1678) 427; Offodile v. Offodile (2019) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1698) 189; Bi-Courtney Ltd. V. A-G, Fed. (2019) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1679) 112; Fredrick V. Lbekwe (019) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1702) 467; Uzodinma v. Eke Ihedioha (2020) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1718) 529.

In due obeisance to the expectation of the law, I have situated the lower court’s decision, in heat of decimation, with the incidents of perversion enumerated above. The rationale behind the comparison is simple. It is to ascertain if the decision was enveloped in the fog of perversion as pontificated by the appellant.

In this wise, I was compelled again to subject the comprehension-Friendly lower court’s decision, sought to be impugned, to a microscopic examination. I find that the lower court did not employ extraneous or alien evidence outside the ones resident within the precints of the binding record. Nor did it close its eagle- prying and Appellate eyes to the pieces of evidence which cried for its attention in the judgment. Put the other way round, the decision is a reflection of the admissible evidence furnished before the trial Court. It is borne out of the existential evidence on record, the Fulcrum of the appeal. The charge of perversion hurled against the decision is a pseudo-accusation that is uncharitable and unsustainable. It is not guilty of the stigma attached to perversion.

P.21

In a word, the decision is not, in the least, mired in the quicksand of perversity as to earn the reprobation of this court.

My noble Lords, the cumulative effect of the foregoing legal dissections is not far-fetched. The appellant’s pan in the proverbial Scale of justice failed to warehouse credible and conclusive Evidence that were potent enough to impregnate his claim with Success. A piece of evidence is credible when it is worthy of belief, see Agbi v. Ogbeh (2006) 11 NWLR (Pt. 990) 1; Dim v. Enemuo (2009) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1149) 353; Eta v. Dazie (2013) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1359) 248; J. Inv. Ltd. V. Afribank (Nig.) Plc. (2013) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1359) 380; Emekav. Chuba-Ikeazu (2017) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1589) 345. In the same Vein, a piece of evidence is conclusive if it leads to a definite result, see Nruamah v. Ebuzoeme (2013) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1372) 474. Proof, in Law, is a process by which the existence of facts is established to the satisfaction of the court, see section 121 of the Evidence Act, 2011; Olufosoye v. Fakorede (1993) 1 NWLR (Pt. 272) 747; Awuse v. Odili (2005) 16 NWLR (Pt. 952) 416; Salau v. State (2019) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1699) 399. (Pt. 1372) 474; APC v. Karfi  (2018) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1616) 479; Ojobo v Moro (2019) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1700) 166.

Flowing from this extensive legal anatomy of sale of family Land under customary law, conducted through the lens of the law,

The lower court’s undiluted affirmation of the trial court’s declaration, want of proof of the appellant’s claim, was in total Alignment with the injunction of the adjectival law. In the Circumstances, I am not armed strong in law to crucify the lower Court’s decision, on want of proof of the appellant’s case, on the undeserved altar of improper/perfunctory evaluation of evidence.

P.22

Per contra, the law impels me to endorse it in toto. | find no Justification to insult the law. In the end, I have no choice than to resolve the issue one against the appellant and in favour of the Respondent.

Having dispensed with issue one, I proceed to the treatment of issue two. It is discernible from its phraseology and tenor, Coupled with the arguments of the warring parties thereon, that the Issue is fixated within a narrow compass. It castigates the lower Court’s confirmatory finding that the appellant owned the burden to prove the title of his vendor, the Oluye family, over the land under Disputation.

It admits of no argument, deducible from the record, the substratum of the appeal, that the appellant’s claim is weaved on grant of the disputed land from the Oluye family. In a nutshell, the Appellant acquired the disputed property through a grant. In the expansive landscape of land law, a grant denotes an acquisition that “comes from a previous title holder to a subsequent one called grantee”, see Kodev. Yusuf (2001) 4 NWLR (Pt. 703) 392 at 409, Per Onu, JSC. A grant is a mode of acquisition of land which is domiciled in the wide province of traditional evidence, see Odofin V. Ayoola (1984) 15 NSCC 711 (1984) SCNLR 372; Atanda v. Ajani (2989) 3 NWLR (Pt. 111) 511; Olubodun v. Lawal (2008) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1115) 1; Yusuf v. Adegoke (2007) 11 NWLOR (Pt. 1045) 332,; Iseogbekun v. Adelakun (2013) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1337) 140. Incidentally, in the domain of adjectival law, grant does not Inure to a party, who pleads it, as a matter of routine. Put starkly,

1. 23

The law fixes on such a party the burden to prove it. In Odofin v. Ayoola (1984) 15 NSCC 711 at 720, Karibi-whyte, JSC, opined: It is well stetted that where a plaintiff relies on grant…. as title to claim the land in dispute, the burden is on him to establish such grant… by cogent and acceptable evidence of tradition, whether or not, accompanied by exercise of dominion which alone may be sufficient to establish title..

Furthermore, the law heaps on the grantee the further burden to prove the title of his grantor. In point of fact, it is an elementary law that where a party propagates his claim for declaration of title  to land on grant by a particular person, family or community, that Party is obligated to further plead and prove the origin of the title of that person, family or community save the title of that party is admitted by the adversary, see Kalio v. Woluchem (1985) 1NWLR (Pt. 4) 610; Echi v. Nnamani (2000) 5 SCNJ 55; Bamgboye v. Olusoga (1996) 4 SCNJ 154/(1996) 4 NWLR (Pt. 441) 520;

Olubodun v. Lawal (2008) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1115); Yusuf v. Adegoke (2007) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1045) 332; Paul v. Ozokpo (1995) 4 SCNJ 119.

1. 24

In due fidelity to the desire of the law, I have again taken another excursion into the record. This time around, I visited the Quiet premises of the respondent’s statement of defence which monopolises pages 42-44 of the record. The law commands the Court to read pleading holistically in order to garner a flowing story/gist of a party’s case, see Okochi v. Animkwoi (2003) 18 NWLR (Pt. 851) 1; Agi v. PDP (2017) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1595)366; NNPC V. Roven Shipping Ltd. (2019) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1676) 67. In total obedience to this legal injunction, I have given a universal Examination to the statement of defence with utmost meticulosity.

Exultantly, it is rebellious to clarity. The synopsis of the respondent’s case, flowing from his 25-paragraph pleading, was that the disputed land formed “part of the Folukan family and Efunkan branch of the Oluye family”. The contending parties are consensus ad idem that six branches make up Oluye family. To my mind, the above excerpt from the pleading is an ample demonstration that the respondent greeted the appellant’s claim, that Oluye family owned the disputed land, with a vehement protestation. In point of fact, it is a classic exemplification of challenge of the title of Oluye family to the land in dispute. In the face of this frontal challenge, the appellant was required by law to trace and establish the paternity of the title of Oluye family to the disputed land. It is a burden cast on him by law. Curiously, there was no atom of pleading or evidence tailored towards the discharge of that mountainous burden foisted on him by law. In the legal hemisphere, the appellant failed to discharge that onus probandi, Id est, the pedigree of the title to the disputed land before its devolution on the Oluye family. This was a costly failure which constitutes a serious coup de grace to the appellant’s claim of a legitimate grant of title in the disputed land to him by the Oluye Family.

1. 25

In the light of this brief dissection of grant of land under customary, the lower court’s finding which endorsed the trial court’s finding, on lack of proof of the title of the Oluye family to the land in dispute, is in consonance with the tenets of adjectival law. It will smell of a judicial sacrilege to disturb a finding which has not disclosed any ounce of hostility to the letters and spirit of the law.

On this score, all the diatribes, which the appellant rained against the immaculate decision, peter into insignificance. In the result, I have no choice than to resolve the issue two against the appellant and in favour of the respondent.

On the whole, having resolved the duo issues against the Appellant, the destiny of the appeal is obvious. It is drained of any morsel of merit and awaits the deserved penalty of dismissal.

Consequently, I dismiss the appeal. Accordingly, the decision of the lower court, in Appeal No. CAJ40/2006, delivered on the 3^rd April, 2008, is, hereby affirmed. The parties shall bear the Respective costs they incurred in the prosecution and defence of the ill-fated appeal.

Appeal dismissed.

OBANDE FESTUŞ ÖGBUINYA, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT.

P26