An Oyo State High Court has dismissed a suit filed to reclaim right of occupancy on a parcel of land by the family of the late Ibadan politician, Alh. Lamidi Adedibu.
The parcel of land measuring 0.5443 hectares is situated at the Government Reservation Area, Iyaganku, Ibadan.
Two of the children of the deceased politician, Prof. Abass Aderemi Adedibu, Alhaji Akeem Ademola Adedibu and his wife, Alh. Abosede Adedibu had filed the suit on behalf of Adedibu against the Governor of Oyo State, Mr Rasak Lawal, the Commissioner for Lands, Housing and Survey and the Attorney General and Commissioner for Justice, Oyo State.
They prayed the court to grant them an order that the statutory right of occupancy dated February 21, 2008 was valid and subsisting.
They also prayed for a perpetual injunction restraining the government and other defendants from making use of a consent judgment that the court had earlier delivered against them.
They wanted the court to set aside the earlier judgment which was delivered by Justice O. Aiki, claiming that it was obtained by fraud and non-disclosure of material facts.
Also contained in their prayers was an order retraining the first defendant from further acts of trespass on any part of late Lamidi Adedibu’s land.
In their final written address, the defendants asked the court to determine whether the claimants had been able to prove their title to the disputed land.
They also demanded that the court should determine whether the consent judgment they had earlier got from the court could be set aside by the court.
While delivering judgment, the presiding judge, Justice E.O Ajayi said: “Justice cannot be done without knowing who has the burden of proof under adversary system of litigation in a claim for declaration of title to land.”
“The law is trite that burden lies on the claimant who generally must rely on the strength of his own case and not on the weakness of the defendant’s issue. The onus is on the claimant to establish his case on the balance of probability”.
On the claimants’ prayer for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants, the court held that it would only grant injunction to support a legal right.
“Having held that the statutory right of occupancy of the claimants is not valid and subsisting, there is no legal right that needs protective order of this court”, the court said.
“From the foregoing therefore, all the three issues are resolved against the claimants but is in favour of the defendants. Accordingly, the case is dismissed”.
