Introduction

Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) is continuing to emerge as a viable complement to litigation in Nigeria's legal system, particularly in land-related disputes. Among ADR methods, mediation stands out for its flexibility, confidentiality, and capacity to preserve relationships. Mediation is a voluntary, non-binding process in which a neutral third party facilitates discussions and negotiations between disputing parties. Its growing relevance in Nigerian jurisprudence stems from the recognition that not all disputes benefit from formal courtroom resolution. The Supreme Court case of Joshua Ogunleye v. Babatayo Oni provides a compelling lens through which to assess the missed opportunity for mediation in a conflict that cut deeply into issues of community, family, and customary land tenure.

Historical Development

Roman Law Origins

Historically, the roots of mediation trace back to Roman law, where informal resolution and compromise were encouraged in civil disputes. Roman jurisprudence emphasized the sanctity of agreements through maxims such as pacta sunt servanda and prioritized peace within families and communities.

English Common Law Development

Over time, English common law, though initially adversarial, began to integrate equitable remedies that mirrored conciliatory mechanisms, notably through the courts of Chancery. The rise of settlement practices, pre-trial conferences, and "without prejudice" communications laid the foundation for modern mediation as a structured form of consensual dispute resolution.

Nigerian Legal System

This historical lineage influenced Nigeria's post-colonial legal development, blending customary dispute resolution with formal processes. Today, Nigeria's legal framework supports mediation through legislation like the Arbitration and Conciliation Act (Cap A18, LFN 2004), as well as procedural rules such as Order 27 Rule 1 (2) (c) of the High Court of Lagos State (Civil Procedure Civil Rules) 2019, which encourage amicable settlement before trial. Multi-Door Courthouses established in jurisdictions like Lagos and Abuja have institutionalized mediation as an essential dispute resolution pathway.

How Mediation Works in Practice

In practical terms, mediation is most suitable where parties seek to preserve long-term relationships or where disputes involve emotional and cultural sensitivities, such as family matters, community land ownership, or commercial partnerships. Unlike litigation, mediation offers flexible outcomes—including negotiated compensation, shared land usage, or public apology—that courts cannot impose under strict legal doctrines.

For mediation to be effective, both parties must consent to the process and be willing to compromise. The mediator does not impose a decision but facilitates dialogue, helping the parties explore their interests and identify common ground. The outcome, once agreed upon and reduced to writing, can be made enforceable as a consent judgment.

Mediation becomes less effective where rights are absolute, stakes are immovable, or one party refuses to negotiate in good faith. Nonetheless, courts now routinely encourage parties to attempt mediation before litigation, especially in cases involving commercial, tenancy, family, and land matters.

Case Study – Joshua Ogunleye v. Babatayo Oni (1990) All N.L.R. 341

Case Background

Ogunleye (Appellant) claimed damages for trespass and sought an injunction over a piece of land at Osu, asserting ownership through a 1978 customary grant and a Certificate of Occupancy issued by the Oyo State government in 1983. Oni (Respondent), however, claimed inheritance of the same land from his father, who had obtained a grant in 1936 and built a house on the land which stood until it collapsed around 1958.

The dispute escalated following mutual accusations of trespass, destruction of property, and police involvement. Both parties remained entrenched in their claims, initiating litigation that spanned from the High Court to the Supreme Court.

Key Legal Issue

The key legal issue was whether the appellant's statutory Certificate of Occupancy conferred a superior title over the respondent's customary inheritance and possession, and whether the C of O was validly issued in light of Oni's prior claim.

Court's Ruling

The Supreme Court ruled in favour of the respondent. The court held that the appellant failed to establish the root of title from the Osu Community. A Certificate of Occupancy, although prima facie evidence of possession, does not extinguish a valid pre-existing title under customary law. The respondent's continuous possession, inherited from his father, amounted to a deemed right of occupancy under Section 34(2) of the Land Use Act.

The court emphasized that for a customary grant to confer valid title, the claimant must plead and prove the root of title of the grantor. Since this was not done, the C of O could not override Oni's interest. The ruling affirmed the legal principle that courts will uphold prior possession and better title, even over formal documentation, where the facts support such a finding.

Legal Implications of Mediation in Litigation

This case underscores the long, expensive, and ultimately polarizing nature of litigation in land disputes. Mediation could have offered a more efficient and harmonious resolution.

Procedurally, mediation would have simplified the dispute by focusing on the parties' interests rather than their legal entitlements. The legal technicalities concerning proof of title, the validity of the Certificate of Occupancy, and the burden of proof under customary law might have been bypassed in favour of negotiated compromise.

Substantively, mediation would have preserved important community and family relationships. Both parties belonged to the same Osu community with interwoven descent groups. The dispute fractured social bonds that could have been preserved through dialogue.

The case also illustrates how land rights under customary law—often based on oral history and community memory—are ill-suited to adversarial proceedings where documentary evidence dominates. Mediation allows room for community elders and stakeholders to contribute to the resolution process, adding legitimacy and cultural relevance.

For legal practitioners, this case highlights the necessity of advising clients on alternative dispute resolution early in a dispute. The risks of litigation—including cost, delay, and emotional toll—can be mitigated through strategic use of mediation, particularly in cases rooted in customary tenure, inheritance, and inter-family land disputes.

Conclusion

The Ogunleye v. Oni case reinforces the vital role that mediation can play in resolving land disputes in Nigeria. While litigation remains an essential tool for enforcing rights, mediation offers a more humane, efficient, and culturally appropriate path for resolving sensitive disputes, especially those involving long-standing community or family claims. By embracing mediation, legal practitioners can not only resolve disputes but also promote healing, reconciliation, and lasting peace in Nigerian communities.