By Jude-Ken Ojinnaka
The Iposu Chieftaincy Family is not the rightful owner of the 1168.141 hectares (2886.534 acres) of land situated at Epe Communal land in Epe Local Government Council of Lagos State. The land belongs to Awujale of Ijebu-Land and Oloja of Epe.
This declaration was made by Justice Sharafa Abioye Olaitan of Epe Division of Lagos State High Court in a legal land tussle.
The land in contention includes the large expanse of land at Akesan and Papa, allegedly 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.
In a judgment delivered on Friday, Justice Olaitan held 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.
READ ALSO
Major disclosures in Tinubu’s Chicago State University documents released to Atiku
The court judgement was delivered after eight years of 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 defendants in suit numbered 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 judgement to the Counter-claimants 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 judgement upheld by the Supreme Court.
“I will also have taken the same position for all the Supreme Court judgements 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 judgements they relied upon. During cross-examination, DW1 could not even provide answers to all the questions asked relating to those judgements.
In conclusion, after weighing the evidence of each of the Counter-claimants 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 Counter-claimants.
“Concerning the 1st, 2nd, and 4th Counter-claimants, I grant reliefs I, II, III, and V. I award N5 million only as damages under Relief F (v) thereof. 1 award cost of N5 million against the defendants and in favour of the two Counter-claimants to be shared in the ratio of 70 percent for the 5th Counterclaimant and 30 percent for the 1st, 2nd and 4th Counterclaimant.
 of land situated at Epe Communal land in Epe){kind=link}