Castles Lifestyle Magazine Issue 31 2024

Dele Farotimi was arrested in December 2024 on issues arising from the execution of the judgment of this case.

Previous Next

Who owns Osapa? The Gabdamosi Eletu case

 Who owns Osapa? The Gabdamosi Eletu case

This article was first printed in 2013 when it was a major issue in the real estate industry. The matter has resurfaced agains as the primary reason why  Lagos Lawyer and activist, Dele Farotimi was recently arrested by the police.

Dele Farotimi was arrested in December 2024 on issues arising from the execution of the judgment of this case.

Unbeknown to many property watchers, a judgement of the Supreme Court has been causing some confusion on settled property titles in the Lekki axis. Claims that high brow estates like NICON Town, Pinnock Beach Estate, Friends Colony amidst others have had their titles affected by the court judgement has been making the rounds. What is this case and what exactly did the court say? Below is a Review of the Supreme Court Judgment in Major Muritala Gbadamosi (Rtd) & Ors v H.R.H Oba Tijani Adetunji Akinloye & Ors delivered on the 12^th of July, 2013

Background facts:

In 1977, the family of Ojomu Chieftaincy family sold by a Deed of Conveyance dated 23^rd of August, 1977 a portion of their land measuring approximately 254.558 hectares to the late Gbadamosi Bandele Eletu (the father of the appellants herein) which land is situates and known as “Osapa Village” in the Eti-Osa Local Government Area of Lagos State. The conveyance was registered as No. 36 at Page 36 in Vol. 1648 at the Land Registry, Lagos.

In 1987, the Lagos State Government by the Lagos State Government Notices Nos. 10 and 14 published in the Lagos State Official Gazette of February 19^th and 26^th, respectively compulsorily acquired a vast area of land spanning several kilometers consisting of many villages and settlements including the Osapa Village (the land sold and conveyed to the late Gbadamosi Bandele Eletu) by the Ojomu Chieftaincy family. However, the Ojomu Chieftaincy family in Suit No. ID/1883/89: Alhaji Fatai Ajetunmobi & Ors v the Attorney General of Lagos State sued to challenge the compulsory acquisition by the Lagos State Government. On the 18^th of October, 1991, the High Court delivered judgment in the suit and granted the reliefs sought in favour of the Ojomu Chieftaincy family to wit;

1. That the Plaintiffs are the persons entitled to a customary right of occupancy to all that piece or parcel of land shown in the plan attached to the statement of claim;

1. That the customary right of occupancy vested in the Plaintiffs in and over the land mentioned in the statement hereof has not been validly or effectively revoked by the Military Governor of Lagos Stat

1. And injunction restraining all officers and servants of the Lagos State Government from committing acts of trespass on the said land or unlawfully making use of the same except with the consent of the Plaintiffs.

Read the latest edition of Castles Lifestyle magazine by clicking on the photo below

Castles Lifestyle Magazine Issue 31 2024

After the judgment in Suit No ID/1883/89: Alhaji Fatai Ajetunmobi & Ors v the Attorney General of Lagos State, the Ojomu Chieftaincy family entered into an agreement with the Lagos State Government wherein portions of Ojomu Chieftaincy family land were granted to the Government while the Governor revoked their right of occupancy over other portions of the aforesaid family land and thereafter excised areas from such portions vesting the same in the Ojomu Family Chieftaincy. Following this agreement, the Ojomu Chieftaincy family became the holders of a right of occupancy in and over the entire portions of land excised from the Government acquisition. In another development, the children of late Gbadamosi Bandele Eletu had in Suit No. M/779/95: Major Muritala Gbadamosi Eletu (RTD) & Ors v A-G Lagos State & Ors also challenged the validity of the said compulsory acquisition by the Lagos State Government,  which suit resulted in a consent judgment recognizing the title of the Plaintiff (the children of the late Gbadamosi Bandele Eletu) to Osapa Village by the court.

The Ojomu Chieftaincy family then claimed that the children of late Gbadamosi Bandele Eletu who were neither parties to Suit No ID/1883/89: Alhaji Fatai Ajetunmobi & Ors v the Attorney General of Lagos State nor the agreement entered into with the Lagos State Government claimed proprietary rights over portions of Ojomu Chieftaincy family land and committed several acts of trespass thereon. This led the Ojomu Chieftaincy family to institute an action in Suit No. LD/2642/95: Major Muritala Gbadamosi (RTD) & Ors v H.R.H. Oba Tijani Adetunji Akinloye & Ors against the children of late Gbadamosi Bandele Eletu which action resulted in the present appeal to the Supreme Court. The children of late Gbadamosi will hereinafter be referred to as the Appellants while the Ojomu Chieftaincy family will be referred to as the Respondents.

The Appellants counter-claimed on the ground that the land which was sold to their late father was exempted from the Notice of Revocation and by virtue of the excision contained in Lagos State Official Gazette No. 24 Vol. 27 dated 23^rd of June, 1994, the title over the affected portion of land situates at Osapa Village reverted to them. The Respondents filed a reply to the counter-claim alleging that all interest in the land granted to the Appellants’ father by Deed of Conveyance dated 23^rd of August, 1977 abated when the Governor of Lagos State revoked all rights of occupancy in and over the vast area of land in Lekki Peninsula in 1981 and since the revocation was not challenged by the Appellants, it remained valid against them.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The trial court gave judgment for the Respondents [the Ojomu Chieftaincy family] and the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal to it by the Appellants [the children of late Gbadamosi Bandele Eletu].On further appeal to the Supreme Court by the Appellants, the Supreme Court held as follows;

• It is not entirely true to say that the appellants could not claim any benefit that accrued to the respondents by virtue of the judgment in Suit No. ID/1883/89.
• That at the time the respondents instituted that action against the Lagos State Government challenging the acquisition of the land, title to that portion of the land covered by exhibit C1 (the registered Deed of Conveyance) had already passed to Gbadamosi Bandele Eletu, the late father of the appellants.
• That the interest which the respondents sought to protect in Suit No. ID/1883/89 included that of the appellants since the appellants derived their root of title from them and they sued for the whole of the Ojomu Chieftaincy family land.
• That the respondent never disclosed to the Lagos State Government that they had divested themselves of their interest in the Osapa Village land
• That since the whole land was initially owned by the Ojomu Chieftaincy family, it was logical that the Lagos State Government would return the land improperly acquired to the owners once the compulsory acquisition was rendered null and void by the court.
• That the respondents have not been consistent in their claim to the land. In one breath, they claimed it was the acquisition by the Lagos State Government which was not challenged that extinguish the appellants’ right to the land while in another breath they are asserting that it was the declaration made by the Court in Suit No. ID/1883/89 in their favour that extinguished the appellants’ interest in the land.
• That it is not true that the appellants sat by and failed to challenge the acquisition of the land by the Lagos State Government and that it is of no consequence whatsoever that the appellants did not institute their action to challenge the acquisition the same time that the respondents took their out writ to challenge the compulsory acquisition.
• That it is of no consequence that the appellants did not join in that suit even if they were aware of it, neither does it lie in the respondents’ mouth to say that the appellants belatedly filed their action after judgment in Suit No. ID/1883/89 was delivered.
• That it was for the Lagos State Government that had carried out the acquisition to challenge the late commencement of Suit No. M/779/93 by the appellants.
• That the argument that Suit No. M/779/93 instituted by the appellants was a review of Suit No. ID/1883/89 holds no water whatsoever and that the appellants were never a party to Suit No. ID/1883/89 and notwithstanding the fact that Suit No. ID/1883/89 was in respect of the whole of Ojomu Chieftaincy family land, the appellants had a right to institute Suit No. M/779/93 to challenge the Lagos State Government over its acquisition of Osapa Village, the title to which the appellants acquired by purchase from the respondents.
• That the renunciation by the respondents of some portion of the acquired land in favour of the Lagos State Government could not affect the interest of the appellants since the respondents could not compromise the Osapa Village land in their settlement agreement with the Lagos State Government because they could not surrender what did not belong to them.
• That any negotiation embarked upon between the respondents and the Lagos State Government which led to the excision of some portion of the acquired land would be vested in the party whose interest was subsisting;
• That the terms of agreement reached between the appellants and the Lagos State Government on 20^th of May, 1996 which became the judgment of the court in Suit No. M/779/93, the Excision Notice of June 23, 1994 should vest the 10 hectares reclaimed land in Osapa Village in the appellants.
• That the respondents cannot eat their cake and have it and that the judgment in Suit No. ID/1883/89 could not vest title on a party that had alienated that title and therefore, the reversion of the title must rest with the appellants.

IMPLICATION OF THE JUDGMENT

1. That the Deed of Conveyance dated 23^rd of August, 1977 and registered as No. 36 at Page 36 in Vol.1648 at the Land Registry, Lagos is valid and subsisting.
2. That title to Osapa Village land is vested in favour of the children of late Gbadamosi Bandele Eletu by inheritance.
3. That the Ojomu Chieftaincy family is not the owner of Osapa Village land and therefore cannot sell same to any member of the public.
4. That any member of the public who purchases any piece and parcel of land within the 10 Hectares of the reclaimed land in Osapa Village, covered by the Deed of Conveyance dated 23^rd of August, 1977 and registered as No. 36 at page 36 in Vol. 1648 and affirmed by the judgment of the Supreme Court, from the Ojomu Chieftaincy family has purchased nothing as the family does not have title to the land.
5. That those innocent purchasers who had built their houses on such land purchased from the Ojomu Chieftaincy family need to re-purchase the land or regularize their position with the children of late Gbadamosi Bandele Eletu.

CONCLUSION

The challenge for the Eletu Family was that the judgement was for 10 hectares when they were claiming for 216 hectares. So their lawyers went back to court in December 2013 for a variation of the judgement of the Court. On the 18^th day of March 2014, the Supreme Court held as follows:

“It is not in doubt that the counter claim which was allowed by this court involved a claim for 254.558 hectares of land which the respondents concede to have sold to the applicants. The judgment of this court sustained that claim but in the consequential orders made therein, only 10 hectares of the land was mentioned which is by farless that the claim. By the provisions of order 8 Rule 16 of the Rules of this court, though the court cannot review any judgment once given and delivered, it can vary the judgment or order so as to give effect to its meaning or intention.In the instant case, the intention of the court is to grant the applicants: their counter claim to the 254.558 hectares of land less the 37.8 hectares conceded to the Lagos State Government in the Terms of Settlement in suit NO. M/779/93 bringing the total entitlement of the applicants to 216.758 hectaresThe above being the case the consequential order in the judgment. aforesaid shall now read. The appellants are entitled to the Statutory Right of Occupancy over 216.758 hectare.” Every other consequential order(s) in the said judgment stand(s).”

And with that the ownership of a substantial portion of Osapa Village in Lekki changed hands