SOGUNRO & ORS. V. YEKU & ORS. (2017)

Background

This appeal arose from a dispute over ownership and possession of land at Ibasa, Igaun, in Ogun State. The appellants, acting as attorneys to the Adejonlu Abinu Family, commenced proceedings at the High Court of Ogun State, Otta Judicial Division. They claimed that they were the owners of the disputed land by virtue of traditional history and that the respondents were their customary tenants. According to the appellants, their ancestor, Abinu, migrated from Ile-Ife and first settled on the land. His successor, Adejonlu, allegedly granted portions of the land to the ancestors of the respondents, who were said to have paid yearly tributes until they denied the appellants’ title.

The appellants sought a declaration that the respondents had forfeited their customary tenancy and an order for possession. The respondents denied the alleged tenancy and asserted ownership on the basis of their own traditional history. They maintained that their ancestors, particularly Somolu and Okuseinde, were the original owners of a large area encompassing Ibasa and other settlements. They also relied on acts of ownership, including settlement, construction, cultivation, creation of streams, religious worship and the sale of land.

The trial court heard seven witnesses for the appellants and five for the respondents. It preferred the respondents’ traditional evidence and dismissed the appellants’ claims. The Court of Appeal, Ibadan Division, affirmed that decision. The appellants then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Issues

1. Whether, having regard to the pleadings and the totality of the evidence, the Court of Appeal was right to affirm the dismissal of the appellants’ claims.
2. Whether the appellants established their alleged title by traditional evidence and proved that the respondents were customary tenants.
3. Whether the issue of government acquisition, which had not been pleaded or decided by the lower courts, could properly be raised before the Supreme Court.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that a fresh issue cannot be raised on appeal without the prior leave of the court. The appellants’ complaint concerning the alleged acquisition of the land by the Ogun State Government had not been pleaded at trial and had not formed part of the decision of the Court of Appeal. It therefore could not competently be introduced as a new substantive issue before the Supreme Court. An appeal is a continuation of the proceedings below, not an opportunity to begin a new case.

The Court further reaffirmed that parties and courts are bound by the pleadings once they have been filed, exchanged and, where applicable, amended. Evidence must correspond with the material facts pleaded. Evidence which departs materially from the pleadings goes to no issue and must be disregarded. This rule prevents surprise at trial and ensures that the case is determined on the issues actually joined by the parties.

Traditional evidence is admissible evidence of ancient history concerning rights said to have existed beyond living memory. Although it is historically hearsay in character, section 66 of the Evidence Act 2011 removes it from the operation of the hearsay rule. However, traditional evidence must be cogent, consistent, direct and capable of properly linking the claimant to the history relied upon. A claimant must establish who founded the land, how it was founded and the intervening owners through whom the claimant derives title. It is insufficient merely to assert that the claimant or his predecessor has possessed the land from time immemorial.

Court Findings

The Supreme Court found that the appellants’ evidence was materially inconsistent with their pleadings. Their principal witness, PW2, gave evidence suggesting that Abinu granted land to the respondents’ predecessors, whereas the pleadings attributed the grant to Adejonlu. PW2 also accepted that Odeyale founded Olowotedo, which conflicted with the appellants’ pleaded case that Adejonlu settled Odeyale there. The witness’s testimony concerning the circumstances of the alleged grant was also internally inconsistent.

The trial judge was entitled to reject or attach little weight to this evidence. The judge also found that the respondents’ traditional history was more coherent and was supported by contemporary acts of ownership. The evidence that the respondents’ ancestors had established settlements, exercised authority, maintained shrines and dealt with portions of the land was considered consistent with ownership. The appellants consequently failed to prove either their title or the alleged customary tenancy.

The Court emphasised that the trial court is ordinarily in the best position to assess credibility because it sees and hears the witnesses and observes their demeanour, candour and mannerisms. An appellate court, which has only the printed record, should rarely interfere with findings based on credibility unless the findings are perverse, unsupported by evidence, founded on a wrong principle, or contradicted by documentary evidence. The findings in this case were supported by the record and were not shown to have occasioned a miscarriage of justice.

The Supreme Court also restated the five recognised methods of proving title to land: traditional evidence; production of duly authenticated documents of title; acts of selling, leasing, renting or farming the land; acts of long possession and enjoyment; and possession of adjoining or connected land in circumstances making ownership of the disputed land probable. The appellants relied principally on traditional evidence but failed to satisfy its essential requirements.

Conclusion

The appeal was dismissed. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeal and the dismissal of the appellants’ claims for forfeiture and possession. The Court held that the appellants had not discharged the burden of proving their alleged title, the respondents’ customary tenancy or a credible traditional history connecting the appellants with the land.

Significance

Sogunro v. Yeku is significant for Nigerian land law and civil procedure. It illustrates the demanding evidential burden placed on a claimant who relies on traditional history, particularly where competing histories are presented. It also confirms that inconsistent testimony by a principal witness may undermine the entire traditional claim. The decision reinforces the binding effect of pleadings, the restriction against raising fresh issues on appeal without leave, and the reluctance of appellate courts to disturb concurrent findings of fact based on witness credibility. It remains a useful authority on the relationship between traditional evidence, acts of ownership, customary tenancy and appellate review.