CHRISTAIN OJO EMOVON RESPONDENT WITNESS-

Stated at the meeting held at the LSSTF/LG meeting room that he

purchased a landed property from the NATIONAL UNION OF CREDIT
COOPERATIVE OF NIGERIA who acquired the property from family,
he sold the land to I.K.
Himself and I.K were arrested and taken to Zone 2 by policemen who
acted on the petitioners instruction this was when I.K started
construction on the land. During interrogation and investigation at the
police station it was discovered that Mr. EMOVON and the petitioner
are friends, upon the discovery of this fact parties were advised to settle
amicably and report back to the police.
Parties had a meeting and a settlement term to pay 300,000, Mr
EMOVON at the time was into spare part business he stated that he
made it known that he would pay the money in installments, Mr
EMOVON stated that he paid some of the money to the petitioner while
he paid some to the petitioner’s ex wife till he paid the whole sum of
300,000. Upon the full payment I.K was allowed to continue
construction on the site. Mr EMOVON stated that himself and the
petitioner had several other transactions.
He stated that the petitioner met with 3 weeks ago to the meeting at the
LSSTF/LG office that he had a petition at the LSSTF office which he is
a party, his part of the settlement was already fulfilled so he wondered
why he would be a party. He was contacted by Mr Lekan Olota (a
member of the respondent’s family) who told him his purpose for
attending the meeting was because the petitioner denied being paid. He
showed the office the deed of assignment binding between himself and
Mr I.K dated 20th November 2003 he submitted a copy to the office.
He further stated that the petitioner has approached him for other
transactions showing interest in other plots of land.

MR BAMIDELE R.A (PETITIONER)- Stated that he purchased the 2

plots of land from the Oloto family. Requested for proof of payment
between himself and Mr. EMOVON he confirmed that himself and Mr
EMOVON had some several transactions and exchanged monetary
payments but as regards the particular land in dispute he wasn’t paid, he
denied payments were made to him as opposed to the previous meeting.
He stated that the 2 plot of land is still intact and he was approached by
3 people who showed interest in the land in dispute.
He submitted a survey plan (LA 237 2014 18H) belonging to Chief
Tajudeen and alleged the survey plan has been altered, he stated at the
meeting that his conveyance (92/1993) covered the 2 plots.