MR. RAFIU SALIU V. MR. SEGUN JEREMIAH & ORS. (2026)

Background

This appeal concerned competing claims to a parcel of land situated at Ona-Oju Eegun, Ogunrun-Eletu Village, via Mowe, in Obafemi Owode Local Government Area of Ogun State. The land measured approximately 4.373 acres or 17,696.103 square metres and was identified in a survey plan. The first to fourth respondents claimed that the land formed part of a larger parcel belonging to the Jagunna family. They asserted that, after inheriting the land, they transferred it to the fifth respondent, Dr. Ephraim Adegboyega Ojo, and delivered possession to him. The fifth respondent subsequently surveyed the land and fenced it.

The respondents alleged that the appellant and other defendants later invaded the land, sold portions to third parties and authorised or participated in the erection of structures. They commenced proceedings before the High Court of Ogun State seeking declarations of entitlement to the statutory right of occupancy, validation of the transfer to the fifth respondent, damages for trespass, legal costs and a perpetual injunction restraining further interference.

The appellant relied, among other matters, on estoppel per rem judicatam, contending that an earlier judgment of the Ogun State High Court prevented the respondents from relitigating the ownership dispute. The third and fourth defendants separately maintained that the portions sold to them were outside the disputed land.

At trial, the High Court struck out the first to fourth respondents because they had transferred their interests in the land to the fifth respondent and were no longer proper parties with proprietary or possessory interests. The court found that the fifth respondent had established a credible root of title through cogent traditional evidence and the transfer evidenced by Family Land Receipt No. 00062 dated 25 May 2010. It rejected the plea of estoppel per rem judicatam, granted the declarations of title and validity of the transfer, awarded trespass damages against certain defendants other than the appellant, and granted a perpetual injunction against the defendants, including the appellant.

Issues

1. Whether the Court of Appeal was right to affirm the High Court’s order of perpetual injunction in favour of the fifth respondent.
2. Whether the Court of Appeal’s description of the first to fifth respondents as claimants, despite the striking out of the first to fourth respondents, occasioned a miscarriage of justice or affected jurisdiction and fair hearing.
3. Whether the findings of the trial court were against the weight of evidence and whether the appellate court ought to have interfered with the evaluation of evidence.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court unanimously dismissed the appeal and affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeal, which had upheld the judgment of the High Court. The Court restated sections 131 and 132 of the Evidence Act 2011: a party seeking judgment on a legal right or liability dependent on asserted facts bears the primary burden of proving those facts, and the burden lies on the party who would fail if no evidence were called.

Under section 133, the evidential burden in a civil case is shifting. Once a claimant produces evidence reasonably capable of establishing the asserted facts, the burden moves to the opposing party to rebut that evidence with credible countervailing material. The process continues throughout the trial. Under section 134, the applicable standard is proof on the balance of probabilities or preponderance of evidence. Applying these principles, the Court held that the fifth respondent’s evidence, including the traditional evidence of his vendors and the evidence of the transfer, sufficiently established his title. The defendants did not present a competing root of title capable of displacing that evidence.

The Court also held that an appellate court will not interfere with a trial court’s evaluation of evidence where the trial court properly applied the law to the facts and reached a conclusion supported by the evidence. The High Court had carefully assessed the evidence and its conclusion was neither perverse nor legally flawed.

Court Findings

The Supreme Court explained that an injunction is an equitable, in personam remedy designed to restrain conduct that threatens or violates a legally recognised right. It is generally ancillary or consequential, rather than an independent remedy. In land cases, the usual forms of injunction include interlocutory, mandatory and perpetual injunctions. A perpetual injunction is granted at the conclusion of proceedings, is indefinite in duration and rests on a final determination of the parties’ rights.

Where a claimant successfully establishes title to land and obtains a declaration of ownership, a perpetual injunction will ordinarily follow unless exceptional circumstances exist. Ownership includes the right to exclusive possession and enjoyment, and the injunction protects that right by preventing continuing or threatened unlawful interference. The order against the appellant was therefore not granted in isolation or “in vacuo”; it followed directly from the declaration of the fifth respondent’s title.

The Court rejected the argument that an injunction could not be made against the appellant because the trial court did not find that he personally committed the acts of trespass. A finding of individual liability for past damages was distinct from the protection of the established ownership right against future interference. The injunction was directed at preventing further trespass or tampering with the fifth respondent’s recognised title.

The Court further held that the Court of Appeal’s mistaken reference to the first to fifth respondents as claimants was a mere surplusage or descriptive error. It did not alter the substance of the decision, reinstate parties who had been struck out, or affect the determination that the fifth respondent owned the land. An error will justify appellate intervention only where it is substantial and has occasioned a miscarriage of justice. Not every slip, misdescription or mistake in a judgment is fatal.

Conclusion

The appeal was dismissed as lacking merit. The judgment of the Court of Appeal, Ibadan Judicial Division, delivered on 12 April 2022 in Appeal No. CA/IB/384/2020, was affirmed. The Supreme Court held that the perpetual injunction in favour of Dr. Ephraim Adegboyega Ojo was properly granted as a consequence of the declaration of title. The Court awarded costs of N5,000,000 against the appellant in favour of the fifth respondent, although one member of the panel made no order as to costs.

Significance

The decision reinforces several important principles of Nigerian civil procedure and land law. First, a party seeking declaratory relief must succeed on the strength of his own evidence, and the evidential burden may shift only after a sufficient prima facie case has been made. Secondly, a trial court’s factual evaluation is entitled to appellate respect where it is rational, supported by the record and based on correct legal principles. Thirdly, the case confirms the normal relationship between a declaration of title and a perpetual injunction: once title is conclusively established, the court may protect it against actual, threatened or likely interference. Finally, the judgment illustrates that appellate courts focus on whether an alleged error affected the outcome or caused injustice, rather than treating every drafting or descriptive mistake as grounds for setting aside an otherwise correct decision.