Court Declares Adetona, Animashaun Owners Of Disputed Epe Land

Justice Sharafa Olaitan of the Lagos State High Court sitting in Epe Division has declared that the Iposu Chieftaincy Family is not the rightful owner of the 1168.141 hectares (2886.534 acres) of land situated on Epe communal land.

Instead the judge declared that the Oloja of Epe, Oba Kamoru Animashaun, and the Awujale of Ijebu land, Oba Sikiru Adetona, fully own the large expanse of land.

It 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 land, 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.

The court judgment was delivered after eight years of a legal tussle between Professor Sulaiman Talabi, Chief Olayiwola 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 were Bayo Rasaq, Ahmed Rasaq, the Oloja of Epe, the Awujale of Ijebu Land, and Rivebond Nigeria Limited.

Justice Olaitan held that the defendants failed to tender the survey plan used in the Supreme Court case upon which the judgment was based.

RELATED

Davido Is Nigeria’s ‘Most Influential Person’, Says Manager Asika

4 minutes ago

Gov Abiodun Mourns MKO Abiola’s Widow Doyin Abiola

24 minutes ago

The court noted that if the defendants had done that, in giving judgment to the counter-claimants in this case, She would have directed that the extent of the land covered by the survey plan in Solomon vs 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.’’