In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Holden at Abuja
On Friday, the 14th day of June, 2024
Before Their Lordships
Kudirat Motonmori Olatokunbo Kekere-Ekun
Ibrahim Musa Mohammed Saulawa
Chioma Egondu Nwosu-Iheme
Haruna Simon Tsammani
Jamilu Yammama Tukur
Justices, Supreme Court
SC/914/2017
Between
PRINCE IDOWU KAYODE ADEBIYI APPELLANT
And
1. MRS AGNES DASILVA
2. MRS OMOLARA DASILVA
3. MR OLATUNDE DASILVA RESPONDENTS
(for themselves and on behalf of the Beneficiaries
of the Estate of Late Mr Paul Oladimeji Borges Dasilva)
(Lead Judgement delivered by Honourable Chioma Egondu Nwosu-Iheme, JSC)
Facts
The Respondents instituted an action against the Appellant at the High Court of Lagos State (the “trial court”) by a writ of summons dated and filed on 22nd March 2011. The Respondents sought a declaration of title to a parcel of land at Fola Agoro Street, Abule Ijesha, Yaba, Lagos described in the Deed of Conveyance dated 28th April, 1978 registered as No. 32 at Page 32 in Volume 1771 of the Land Registry of Lagos State; a declaration that the Appellant trespassed on the said land; an order of possession of the land; an order of perpetual injunction against the Appellant, as well as special damages for the annual rental value of the land from 1st February, 2011 till possession is recovered from the Appellant. The case of the Respondents who filed the action as the wife and children of one late Mr Paul Oladimeji Borges Dasilva, was that the subject property was owned by the deceased by virtue of the Deed of Conveyance dated 28th April, 1978 registered as No. 32 at Page 32 in Volume 1771, and the Appellant had encroached on the same.
The Appellant filed an Amended Statement of Defence, in which he claimed that the subject property was sold to him by the Eletu Odibo Family in 2011. He relied on an unregistered Deed of Assignment, purportedly issued to him. At the conclusion of trial, the trial court delivered its judgement in favour of the Respondents, and granted all the reliefs sought.
Dissatisfied, the Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal. The appeal was heard and in its judgement, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, only as regards the trial court’s award of special damages to the Respondents. The Court of Appeal however, affirmed the other parts of the decision of the trial court delivered in favour of the Respondents. Aggrieved, the Appellant filed a further appeal at the Supreme Court.
Issues for Determination
The Supreme Court adopted the 1st issue submitted by the Appellant, whilst it collapsed the Appellant’s 2nd and 3rd issues into a singular issue as follows:
1. Whether the Court of Appeal was correct in law when it affirmed the decision of the trial lower court, that the Respondents have the necessary standing (Locus Standi) or the capacity to institute or maintain the action against the Appellant.
2. Whether, in the overall circumstances of this appeal, the Court of Appeal was right in granting the reliefs for declaration of title, possession, trespass and damages to the Respondents.
Arguments
Counsel for the Appellant argued on the 1st issue that the Respondents did not establish that they had the requisite locus standi to institute the action at the trial court. Counsel submitted that the mere assertion of the Respondents as to their relationship with the purported owner of the subject property without more, was not enough to establish their locus standi. He contended that the Respondents had a further duty to plead and prove how title in the land devolved on them after the intestate death of the Mr Paul Oladimeji Borges Dasilva. Counsel submitted that a claim brought on behalf of an intestate’s estate which is without a grant or letters of administration as in the case of the Respondents is an incurable nullity, as it is only a letter of administration or probate that can give life to such action. He relied on the case of AYORINDE v KUFORIJI (2007) 4 NWLR (PT. 1024) 341.
In response, Counsel for the Respondents argued that so long as the Plaintiffs have a right or vested interest to protect and enforce legally, which right has been disclosed in the Statement of Claim, they would have discharged the onus on them to show that they have the necessary locus standi to institute the action. Counsel submitted that the Respondents are well protected under the Administration of Estates Law of Lagos State Cap. 2 1973 which provides that all properties of any person who died intestate belong exclusively to his children and assigns, and that the court would judicially notice a family member with interest in a family property. Counsel submitted that the res had become family property at the intestate death of Mr Paul Oladimeji Borges Dasilva, and the Respondents were not only competent to sue in their capacity as the deceased’s wife and the children, they were also competent to represent other beneficiaries of his Estate. It was further submitted that the facts demonstrating the Respondents’ right and vested interest as family members of the intestate, were disclosed in the Statement of Claim, and so the onus on the Respondents to establish their locus standi had been discharged. Counsel relied on UGWUNZE v ADELEKE (2008) 2 NWLR (PT. 1070); (2007) LPELR-8101(CA).
On the 2nd issue, Counsel for the Appellant argued that the Respondents failed to prove their inheritance of the subject property under native law and custom, and as such, are themselves strangers to the land with no legal interest in the same.
On the contrary, Counsel for the Respondents argued that the uncontroverted evidence adduced by the Respondents at trial to show how the subject property was acquired by their late husband and father respectively, and evince the exercise of proprietary rights on the property, established the Respondents’ entitlement to a declaration of title to the property and the other reliefs affirmed by the Court of Appeal.
Court’s Judgement and Rationale
On the 1st issue, the Supreme Court held that a person is said to have locus standi to sue in an action if he is able to show o the Court’s satisfaction that his civil rights and obligations have been or are in danger of being infringed. The Court further held that the law is settled that any member of a family may sue to protect family property and therefore, has locus standi to institute an action in respect of any wrongdoing to such land or property.
On the relationship of the Respondents with the deceased owner of the subject property, the Supreme Court held that it was not in dispute that the Respondents are the wife and children respectively of the late Mr Paul Oladimeji Borges Dasilva, the holder of Deed of Conveyance dated 28th April, 1978 registered as No. 32 at Page 32 in Volume 1771 of the Land Registry of Lagos State. The Court referenced the averments of the Respondents in paragraph 1 of the Respondents’ Further Amended Statement of Claim in which the 1st Respondent was described as the wife, and the 2nd and 3rd Respondent as the children of the late Mr Paul Oladimeji Borges Dasilva.
The Supreme Court held that the fact that the Respondents did not tender Letters of Administration cannot affect their right to protect the family property, as to do nothing would give rise to the defence of laches and acquiescence where they decide to pursue their claim at a later date. The Court held that as the widow and children of the late Mr Paul Oladimeji Borges Dasilva, the Respondents have sufficient interest in the property in dispute under Yoruba Native Law and Custom. The Apex Court found that the Respondents having established their relationship to the deceased intestate through their averments in pleadings, testimony of witnesses and documentary evidence, which was never challenged by the Appellant; had demonstrated that they had the necessary locus standi to institute the action.
On the 2nd issue, the Supreme Court held that the production of title documents to land is one of the ways of establishing ownership of land. The Court referred to its decision in IDUNDUN v OKUMAGBA (1976) 9-10 SC 227. The Apex Court held that the Respondents successfully debunked the Appellant’s assertion that their claim to title to the property was a “factual impossibility”, by presenting uncontradicted documentary evidence which included (i) the Notice to tenants issued by Chief J. S. Oke who was acting for the Eletu Odibo Chieftaincy Family which sold the subject property to the deceased Mr Paul Oladimeji Borges Dasilva (Exhibit C1); (ii) Lease Agreement dated 15th June, 1991 by which the Respondents’ progenitor leased the land to an automobile mechanic (Exhibit C2); (iii) Rental Valuation Report dated 15th November, 2011 (Exhibit C3); (iv) Registered Deed of Conveyance dated 28th day of August, 1978 (Exhibit C7); and (v) Photographs showing the subject property inter alia (Exhibit C8(A-D)). The Court held further that above all, apart from the fact that Exhibit C7 (the Deed of Conveyance of the late Mr Paul Oladimeji Borges Dasilva) presented by the Respondents was not contradicted, it was also duly executed and duly registered as No. 32 at Page 32 in Volume 1771 of the Land Registry of Lagos State. The Court reiterated its decision in ADELAJA v FANOIKI (1990) 2 NWLR (PT. 131) that where the complaint is that no such document exists, the proof of the existence of the document will be conclusive as to its validity, except where the person challenging the existence of the document is able to show that the document so proved to exist is a forgery.
The Apex Court found that the Respondents adduced uncontroverted evidence that established the ownership of the subject property by the intestate who was the 1st Respondent’s late husband and the 2nd and 3rd Respondent’s father, hence, there was no reason for Apex Court to interfere with the concurrent findings of the trial court and the Court of Appeal, that the Respondents are entitled to the reliefs sought for declaration of title, possession, trespass and general damages.
Appeal Dismissed.
Representation
Azeez Atanda for the Appellant.
Olufemi Olulowo for the Respondents.
Reported by Optimum Publishers Limited, Publishers of the Nigerian Monthly Law Reports (NMLR)(An affiliate of Babalakin & Co.)
Leave a Reply