Unable to come to terms with its arguments and evidence, the Supreme Court of Nigeria has dismissed an ownership claim by the Abosede family, which fought through the courts to reclaim the hitherto disputed landed property measuring 10.804 hectares located in Kwara State of Nigeria.

  Abosede family, the appellant, represented by one Jimoh Daudu, lost the battle as the apex's court concluded that the it failed to advance superior argument over the land, that could have moved it to order the respondent, the Alagbe family to vacate the erstwhile controversial land. 

  Justice Clara Ogunbiyi, in her lead judgment, said in spite a certificate of customary tight of occupancy, Abosede family failed to discharge the burden of proving that the family had exclusive possession and, or absolute ownership of the land in dispute. 

 "It has been held earlier in the course of this judgment that the appellant was unable to prove by evidence the existence of any official boundary erected physically or recognized traditionally by the two families and hence the finding by the lower court that the area in dispute was "apparently a no man's land between the two portions of land held exclusively by each family. With all humility and respect, such finding cannot be faulted and I so hold." 

  The plaintiff's claim at the trial High Court of Kwara State was for a declaration of title on a piece of land situated at Budo Isale Olooru village. A declaration that the plaintiff as the head of Abosede family has the customary right to sue for and on behalf of other members of the family,   that the land situate at Budo Isale in Olooru village measuring 10.804 hectares belong to the Abosede family and an order directing the defendant to pay the compensation of N200,000.00 to the plaintiff for the damages caused to the plaintiff's land. 

  They are also seeking an order directing the defendant, agents, servants and privies to vacate the land situate at Budo Isale Oloom village, perpetual injunction restraining the defendants, agents, servants and privies acting or purporting to act in any manner as the customary owner of the land situate at Budo Isale Olooru village measuring 10.804 hectares."

  In response to the plaintiff's claims, the defendant also filed their defence and counter claimed wherein they stated that: "they are the traditional owners of the land at Ehinkule/Budo Isale the subject matter of this litigation.  They also prayed for an order of perpetual injunction restraining the plaintiff's family, agents, or privies from committing further act of trespass in the land in dispute. 

  The defendants also asked for an order nullifying the customary right of occupancy purportedly issued by the Moro Local Government in favour of the plaintiffs over the land in dispute.

  The brief facts of the plaintiff's case are that he is of a direct lineage to one Mallam Abosede, who founded Abosede in Olooru and who was the customary owner of a land measuring 10.804 hectares situate at Abosede area, Olooru village. He claimed that it was his forefather who was the first settler and that the Olooru village met his father already on the land. 

  According to him, Abosede was not within Olooru, but near Olooru. He added that the families known as Olooru are Tambaya, Ile-Alagbe, Ile-Ojude and Ile Oju-Oja and that the defendants in this case were Tambaya and Ile alagbe families. He added that Abdullahi was a muslim, while the fore-father of the plaintiff was a traditionalist who worshipped Orisa-nla and that because of the difference in religions, Abdullahi gave Abosede the present place where his descendant (plaintiff's family) now live called Budo Isale. 

  It was in the evidence of the defendant that Budo-Isale Abosede and Ehinkule are one and the same place. 

  While the plaintiff alleged that the defendant trespassed on their land measuring 10.804 hectares, the defendants on their part claimed that a parcel of land given to one Baba Olodo by the Abosede family falls within their land at Ehinkule Ile-Alagbe and deny liability.

  In summary, the defence' case was that when the forefather of the plaintiff came, he met their forefather called Abdullahi who founded Olooru, with his four children. That the plaintiff's forefather was a guest of Abdullahi.

 The trial Judge in his judgment held: "Failure to identify the distinct area covered by this 10.804 hectares is vital to the case of the plaintiff and an injunction cannot be granted on an indefinite portion of land, the area must be distinct. For this reason the claims of the plaintiff ... must fail and it is hereby dismissed."  The Judge also dismissed the counter claim.

 Against the decision, the appellant filed his notice of appeal and sought for the following reliefs from the Court of Appeal, Ilorin Division, wherein he sought "an order setting aside the judgment of the trial court…" 

  On 30th March 2006, the lower court, while not all agreeing on reasons, however reached a common conclusion that the appeal was devoid of any merit and dismissed the appeal thereof. It is against the dismissal by the Court of Appeal that the appellant has further appealed to the Supreme Court. 

  Two issues were raised before the apex's court including whether the appellant sufficiently proved the identity of the land in dispute and its area as 10.804 hectares to entitle him to judgment on all the heads of his claims and whether the findings by the Court of Appeal the appellant has title over land? 

  After reviewing the parties' submission, Justice Ogunbiyi held: "On the nagging question of the identity of the land in dispute therefore, I am of the firm view that same had been proved by the plaintiff/appellant before the trial court which was grossly in error by holding the contrary or otherwise. I further hold that the justices of the court of Appeal on the majority decision also erroneously fell into the same trap as did the trial judge. In other words, the dissenting view held by Ogunwumiju JCA on this issue is upheld. The first issue was therefore resolved in favour of the appellant.

  On the second issue, the apex's court said since the appellant was unable to prove exclusive possession and, or absolute ownership of any part or portion of the land in dispute, he could not in the circumstance be granted a declaration of title as sought, resolving this against the appellant. 

  Ogunbiyi further said: "On the totality of this appeal, while issue one on identity resolved in favour of the appellant issue two on the claim of title or ownership is resolved against him. In the result therefore, the appeal is hereby dismissed and I affirm the totality of the judgment of the Court of Appeal wherein the judgment of the trial High Court Kwara State delivered on the 11th February 2002 is hereby affirmed.  The appeal is dismissed with an order of N50,000.00 costs awarded in favour of the respondent against the appellant."