An Oyo State High Court has voided a right of occupancy on a parcel of land obtained by a former strong man of Ibadan politics, late Alhaji Lamidi Adedibu.
The parcel of land measuring 0.5443 hectares is situated at the Government Reservation Area, Iyaganku, Ibadan.
According to Vanguard, the two of the children of the deceased politician, Professor Abass Aderemi Adedibu, Alhaji Akeem Ademola Adedibu and his wife, Alhaja Modinat Abosede Adedibu had filed a suit on behalf of Chief Adedibu against the Governor of Oyo State, Engr Seyi Makinde, the Commissioner for Lands, Housing and Survey and the Attorney General and Commissioner for Justice, Oyo State.
The claimants in the suit marked 1/632/2016, had challenged the defendants praying 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 Honorable Justice O.I Aiki claiming that it was obtained by fraud and non-disclosure of material facts.
Also contained in their prayers is an order restraining the first defendant from further acts of trespass on any part of late Lamidi Adedibu’s land.
Adedibu’s children were represented by their counsel, Mr A. T Adebayo while Mr Bayo Azeez and O. A Ogunniran held the brief for the defendants.
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 honourable 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 a perpetual injunction restraining the defendants, the court held that it would only grant an 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”.
