"I have held earlier in this case that both parties by their pleadings and the documentary evidence before the Court have demonstrated that they know the location and boundaries of the land in dispute. What is left is proof of ownership of same. However, Neither of the parties in their pleadings made identity of the land in question an issue. I hold that since the issue of identity of the land in dispute did not arise from the pleadings of both parties, it cannot be an issue in this appeal. See Kopek v. Ekisola (2010) 1 SCNJ 64 @ 77.

In Nwokidu v. Okanu (supra), the Supreme Court held that "when the identity of the land does not arise from the pleadings, particularly where the defendant by his pleadings admits the description, location, features and dimension of the land, the identity of the disputed land is not a question in issue and does not require proof. See Ogbu v. Wokoma (2005) 14 NWLR (Pt. 944) 118; Makanjuola v. Balogun (1989) 3 NWLR (Pt.108) 192 @ 191."

Per DANJUMA, J.C.A. in IKUMUYILO & ANOR v. AKINJAGUNLA CITATION: (2018) LPELR-44334(CA)