"The lower Court in its judgment, faulted the appellants for not being specific on the land being claimed by them, and further preferred the traditional evidence laid by the respondents over and above that of the appellants in dismissing the claimant's case.

I have therefore given due consideration to the submission of the learned counsel with regard to whether the precise area in contention was laid before the lower Court by the claimants. See Adelusola vs. Akinde (2004) 12 NWLR (pt. 887) 295;

"A plaintiff seeking a declaration of title to land has the primary duty or burden to prove clearly and unequivocally the precise area to which his claim relates." I take note of the claimants' averment at paragraph 18 of the statement of claim, where it was averred that Oba Sule gave the expanse of land at Osin Mogaji now called Osin Adedoyin village to his second son Adedoyin and his heirs in perpetuity.

The defendants on the other hand alluded to the said land by paragraph 7 of the statement of defense, and whereas the said land rightly forms the subject matter in contention, the identity of the land was not made an issue.

It seems clear to me therefore that the identity of the land described as Adedoyin land by both parties, is clear to them from their various averments and pieces of evidence, and by the authority of Fatuade vs. Onwoamanam (1990) 2 NWLR (pt. 132) 322, the need for a sketch plan or survey plan becomes unnecessary. See also Atanda vs. Iliasu (supra), Odofin vs. Oni (2001) 1 SC 13, Okpaloka vs. Umeh (1976) 9-10 SC 269.

To this extent, it is my humble view that the lower Court was in error basing his judgment on the claimants' non production of a survey plan in the description of the disputed land, when such has not been made an issue, and clearly understood by the parties."

Per BARKA, J.C.A. IN ADEDOYIN & ORS v. AMOO CITATION: (2018) LPELR-44978(CA)