AYORINDE V. KUFORIJI (2022)

Background

This appeal concerned possession, succession and competing claims to land at No. 8 Labulu Street, Ibara, Abeokuta, Ogun State. In 1954, three Kuforiji brothers—Samuel Abraham Kuforiji, Herbert Frederick Afolabi Kuforiji and Hezekiah Christopher Olajide Kuforiji—jointly leased the land to the Baptist Mission for 99 years. In 1973, members of the Kuforiji family executed a deed of conveyance in favour of Rev. (Dr.) J. T. Ayorinde, and in 1974 the Baptist Mission surrendered its unexpired leasehold interest to him. The documents were registered and became central to the dispute.

The appellant, Olufemi Ayorinde, was the nephew of Rev. Dr. Ayorinde and had lived on the land with him and his wife from 1973. He erected gates, operated a poultry farm, built shops and installed tenants. Rev. Dr. Ayorinde died intestate and without issue in 1977, while his wife also died intestate and without issue in 1996. Shortly after her burial, the respondent entered the land with other persons and allegedly damaged the gates, fence, crops, poultry equipment and birds. The appellant commenced an action in a representative capacity for himself and the children of the Ayorinde family, claiming a declaration of entitlement to a statutory right of occupancy, damages for trespass and damage to property, and perpetual injunction.

The respondent denied the appellant’s title and counter-claimed for possession and mesne profits. He asserted that the land belonged to him and the other children of his father, Hezekiah Christopher Olajide Kuforiji. The trial High Court dismissed the appellant’s claims, holding that he lacked locus standi and that he had failed to prove the applicable customary law of inheritance. It granted the respondent’s counter-claim. The Court of Appeal affirmed the dismissal and declared the respondent beneficial possessor, although it set aside the award of mesne profits. The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court.

Issues

1. Whether the appellant had locus standi to sue for trespass and related reliefs.
2. Whether the appellant established a better interest in the land through the deeds of conveyance and surrender and through intestate succession.
3. Whether the respondent’s counter-claim was sustainable in view of contradictory evidence, family ownership, limitation, laches and acquiescence.
4. Whether the lower courts properly evaluated the documentary and oral evidence.
5. Whether the respondent’s preliminary objection to selected grounds of appeal was competent.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court unanimously allowed the appeal. It held that locus standi means the capacity to institute proceedings to protect a civil right or interest. It does not depend on the ultimate success of the claim. A claimant need only disclose a justiciable dispute or reasonable cause of action. The appellant’s pleaded possession, relationship with Rev. Dr. Ayorinde, improvements to the land and alleged violent trespass were sufficient to confer standing.

The Court further held that the appellant and his siblings were entitled to benefit from the intestate estate under section 49 of the Administration of Estates Law of Ogun State, 1978. Where an intestate dies without issue but leaves the issue of a deceased brother or sister of the whole blood, those relatives may inherit in accordance with the statutory scheme. The fact that Rev. Dr. Ayorinde contracted a Christian marriage did not automatically exclude the application of the statutory rules or the relevant customary law governing the later devolution of the property as family property. “Per stirpes” means distribution according to the deceased ancestor’s share.

The Court emphasised that family property is a customary holding, and any member of the family whose interest is threatened may sue to protect it. A member cannot, however, ordinarily claim undivided family property as personal property without partition. The respondent’s claim was defective because he sued in his personal capacity while the evidence suggested that the land remained jointly held by the descendants of the three original owners.

Court Findings

The Supreme Court found that the respondent’s evidence contained material and irreconcilable contradictions. He alternately claimed that the land belonged to his father, that it belonged jointly to himself and his siblings, that it was family property, and that he had sold it to another person. His witnesses also gave evidence inconsistent with his pleadings. A court cannot select portions of contradictory testimony without a credible explanation from the party who called the evidence.

The registered deeds were given greater weight than the inconsistent oral evidence. Oral testimony could not vary or contradict the terms of written instruments, particularly documents more than 20 years old. Unchallenged recitals in title documents raised a presumption as to the facts stated in them. The Court held that the deed of surrender validly transferred the unexpired leasehold interest to Rev. Dr. Ayorinde, and that the appellant, being in possession and deriving his interest through him, had a stronger claim against the respondent.

The Court also applied sections 6(2) and 16 of the Limitation Law of Ogun State, 1978. An action to recover land must generally be brought within 12 years from the accrual of the right of action. Upon expiry of the prescribed period, the relevant title is extinguished, not merely barred procedurally. The respondent knew of the transaction and the appellant’s possession by at least 1979 but did not sue until the 1990s. His claim was therefore defeated by limitation, as well as by laches and acquiescence. The respondent’s counter-claim, being an independent action, had to succeed on the strength of his own case and not on any weakness in the appellant’s case.

The Court rejected the preliminary objection because a preliminary objection should ordinarily attack the competence of the appeal as a whole, not merely selected grounds capable of being severed while the remaining grounds sustain the appeal.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court set aside the decisions of the High Court and Court of Appeal. It granted the appellant’s claims, declared the respondent’s acts of entry and damage to constitute unlawful trespass, awarded N100,000 for damaged property and N100,000 as general damages for trespass, and granted a perpetual injunction restraining further trespass during the subsistence of the relevant leasehold interest. The respondent’s counter-claim for possession and mesne profits was dismissed. Costs of N2,000,000 were awarded to the appellant.

Significance

Ayorinde v. Kuforiji is significant for its clarification of locus standi, intestate succession and the protection of family property under Nigerian law. It confirms that a person in lawful or established possession may sue to restrain trespass even where the ultimate title is contested. It also demonstrates that statutory limitation provisions may extinguish title, not merely prevent access to court, and that long possession coupled with knowledge, inaction and expenditure may create an equitable defence. Finally, the decision reinforces the primacy of registered title documents over contradictory oral testimony and limits the ability of one member of a family to assert exclusive ownership over undivided family land.