SALIH BABA TOURE & ANOR VS AMINU AHMED & ANOR

INTRODUCTION

Per an amended writ of summons and statement of claim filed on the 13th day of December, 2019 the plaintiffs claimed the following reliefs against the defendants: -(1) Declaration of title to all that piece and parcel of land described in the scheduled hereto.

1. Declaration that the 2nd defendant had divested its interest in the land after alienating same to the plaintiffs.

2. Damages for trespass against the defendant.

3. An order of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants whether by themselves, their agents, assigns, workmen howsoever described from interfering with the plaintiff’s quiet enjoyment of the subject matter.

4. Cost to include assessed legal fees.

The 1st defendant denied liability for the claims of the plaintiff however the 2nd defendant did not bother to respond to the writ of summons and statement of claim even though same was served on the 2nd defendant on 27th May, 2020. The court on the 27th July, 2020 upon an application brought by the plaintiffs, entered interlocutory judgment against the 2nd defendant in favour of the plaintiffs pending the final determination of the matter against the 1st defendant.

It is also worthy of note that on the 30th of November, 2018, this court then differently constituted, granted an order of interim injunction against the first defendant in respect of the subject matter of this suit.

Initially the plaintiffs sued only the 1st defendant but later the 2nd defendant was joined to the suit upon an application brought by the 1st defendant because it was clear that both plaintiffs and the 1st defendant had acquired their land from the 2nd defendant who was their common grantor.

ISSUES FOR TRIAL After the close of pleadings the plaintiffs filed application for directions.

The plaintiffs’ issues which were set down for determination by the court are as follows: 1)Whether or not the plaintiffs acquired the subject matter from their grantor when the land was bare? 2)Whether or not the plaintiffs acquired the subject matter earlier in time before the defendant (1st defendant)? 3)Whether or not the defendant (1st defendant)acquired the subject matter from the grantor of the plaintiffs at a time when the plaintiffs were already in possession? 4)Whether or not any such resale of the subject matter by the grantor of the plaintiffs was lawful? 5) Any other issues raised by the pleadings.

CASE OF PLAINTIFFS The case of the plaintiffs was that they acquired the land, the subject matter of