IMPORTANT NOTICE

A Survey Plan is a document of measures of a track of land, its boundaries and contents. The purpose of a survey plan in land dispute is to show graphically the morphology of an area in dispute, its extent and size. Survey plan exposes to the court the identity, certainty and the dimensional area of the land in issue between the parties. By its production, the Court is more focused as the action before it is undoubtedly directed at a known and definite subject matter. The answer to the above question of whether production of survey of survey plan is mandatory in all land matters depends on production of alternative proof which can achieve the purpose for which survey plan is being tendered. This is what the decision of Supreme Court in the case of OLADUNJOYE V.  AKINTERINWA is all about.

Oladunjoye maintained action in Ondo State High Court against Akinterinwa and Bello for declaration of title, injunction and damages over a piece of land. The case of Oladunjoye  is that he bought a piece of land from one Famubo family of Akure in 1971 for certain sum and a receipt for this sum dated 15th July, 1971 was tendered and admitted in evidence. He called as a witness one Joseph Famubo, the head of the family also known as Arowogbadamu family. He testified that the family sold the land to Oladunjoye. He said they showed Oladunjoye the land and went into possession. He denied that his family ever gave land to Akinterinwa and Bello. He further disclosed that Bello was Counsel or Lawyer for his family (Famubo family) in another previous land case which the family won. The evidence went further that Bello later got Oba Deji of Akure to convey to him part of the land he won against the said Deji for Famubo family. And thereafter, Bello sold the part of the land he acquired to others of which the part of land in dispute in this case forms part.

Bello in their defence gave evidence that he was Famubo family Lawyer for years and that he represented the family in Court in respect of the disputes over the family land. He also stated that the land was a large expanse of land. He said it was in 1964 that he approached the then head of the family who was one James Omeiye for a portion of the land to be sold to him and his relatives, and the family obliged him and took him to the land where he marked out the area which he wanted for himself, his wife, his wife's brother and Dr. Ogunleye. He said the land were  four plots altogether and that he, Bello paid a certain sum of money to the family. And that he was subsequently let into possession of the plots of which Conveyances were later executed in his favour and Akinterinwa's separately by the Deji  of Akure Oba Ademuwagun Adesina as the legal trustee of all Akure land. They concluded that himself Bello, Mrs. Bello and Dr. Ogunleye have since developed their plots.

After hearing both sides to the dispute, the trial Court entered judgement for Oladunjoye. Dissatisfied, both Akinterinwa and Bello appealed to Court of Appeal, Benin where it was dismissed. Dissatisfied, they further appealed to Supreme Court.

One of the issues which was determined under the parent issue in the case touched upon whether Oladunjoye failed to establish a clear and certain identity of the land to which his claim in trespass and injunction relates. The Supreme Court upon hearing held that, the contention by Akinterinwa and Bello that the evidence of the surveyor who made the plan is a prerequisite to the determination of the identity of the land in dispute is misconceived. The Court went further to hold that there being no difficulty in identifying the land in dispute, there is no issue properly joined, and a declaration can be made without basing it on a plan. “The evidence of a surveyor if available is therefore desirable, but not necessary where the proof of the identity of the land is unnecessary. A plan is therefore not a sine qua non to proof of identity of disputed land. The requirement described as “the acid test” is that the land in dispute must be ascertained with definitive certainty……” Consequently, the Supreme Court decided the above issue in favour of Oladunjoye.

The above decision is in alignment with plethora of cases among which OSHODI V. EYIFUNMI is, where Supreme Court held that, it is not in all cases that a survey plan of the land in dispute is either an absolute necessity or is so mandatory that unless it is produced and tendered in evidence, the Court would have no option but to dismiss the plaintiff's claim. Where the land in dispute is known to both parties or is clearly ascertainable whether from the averments in the pleadings or otherwise and its area, exact location and precise boundaries on the ground are either unmistakably and appropriately pleaded or are admitted or acknowledged by the defendant, the non-production in evidence of the survey plan of such land cannot be a matter of great moment and does not disentitle the plaintiff from successfully maintaining an action in respect of title, trespass or injunction over such land.