Awujale of Ijebu-Land, Oloja of Epe as Rightful Owners of Land In Epe, Court Declares
A Lagos
State High Court sitting in Epe Division has declared that Iposu Chieftaincy
Family are not rightful owners of the 1168.141 hectares (2886.534 acres) of
land situated at Epe Communal land.
Justice Sharafa
Abioye Olaitan, in a judgment delivered on Friday, September 29, 2023, ruled that the large expanse of land is fully owned by the Oloja of
Epe, Oba Kamoru Animashaun and the Awujale of Ijebu-land Oba Sikiru Adetona.
The land
includes the large expanse of land at Akesan and Papa, alleged to be bounded by
Epe Lagoon, Santos Family land, Lupotoro Family land, Odofin Compound, Jubulu
Family ! and Itemu River measuring 1168.141 hectares (2886.534 acres) more
particularly shown on Composite Plan No: ASC/050°/LA/2020 drawn by Surveyor F.
A. Ogunbadejo dated 10th of August 2020.
In a
judgment delivered on Friday, September 29, 2023, Justice Olaitan ruled that the
large expanse of land is fully owned by the Oloja of Epe, Oba Kamoru
Animashaun, and the Awujale of Ijebu-land Oba Sikiru Adetona.
The court
verdict was delivered after eight years of a legal tussle between Professor
Sulaiman Owolabi Talabi, Chief Olayiwola Alade Oladunjoye, and Chief Wale Mogaji
who sued for themselves and on behalf of the Iposu Chieftaincy Family as a defendant
in the suit number EPD/131LMW/2016 against the counter claimants who are Mr
Bayo Rasaq, Mr. Ahmed Rasaq, the Oloja of Epe, the Awujale of Ijebu Land, and
Rivebond Nigeria Limited.
Justice
Olaitan ruled that the Defendants failed to tender the survey plan used in the
Supreme Court case upon which the judgment was based.
The court
noted that if the Defendants had done that, in giving judgment to the
Counterclaimants in this case, She would have directed that the extent of the
land covered by the survey plan in Solomon v Solomon be removed from Ijebu land
(i.e. from Exhibit FOA 2) for the benefit of the Defendants since the matter
was a judgment upheld by the Supreme Court.
“I will also
have taken the same position for all the Supreme Court judgments relied upon by
the Defendants in this case. But what do we have? The Defendants did not
present any of the survey plans used in all the judgments they relied upon.
During cross-examination, DW1 could not even provide answers to all the
questions asked relating to those judgments.
In
conclusion, after weighing the evidence of each of the Counterclaimants and the
evidence of the Defendants on the imaginary scale of justice, I find on a
balance of probabilities that the scale of justice tilts in favour of the
Counterclaimants.
“With
respect to the 1st, 2nd, and 4th Counterclaimants, I grant reliefs I, II, III, and V. I award five million naira only (N5, 000,000.00) as damages under Relief
FV thereof. 1 award cost of five million naira only (N5, 000,000.) against the
Defendants and in favour of the two Counterclaimants to be shared in the |
ratio 70% for the 5th Counterclaimant and 30% for the 1st, 2nd, and 4th
Counterclaimant.
Post Comment
No comments