Ibadan Magistrates’ Court denies ladder’s return over unproved right to possession

The Magistrates’ Court in Ibadan has denied Bisi Akinwale’s request for the return of an aluminium ladder held by Kunle Salami, finding that she had not proved a better present right to possess it. Salami may retain possession under the judgment, but the court did not find that he owns the ladder.

The dispute turned on what happened after Akinwale allowed Salami to take the ladder: did her later permission to keep it merely extend a loan, or change their arrangement? Akinwale sought only its return, not damages. Neither party received a monetary award.

A receipt established that Akinwale bought the ladder for ₦82,000 three months before Salami collected it. He did not dispute that it was the same ladder in his possession. But proof of the earlier purchase did not establish whether the parties later changed the terms on which he held it.

The central evidential gap was the missing message. Although both sides referred to a WhatsApp exchange, neither produced it. Akinwale acknowledged that she could not provide the exact message or a separate record verifying its wording. The court treated the competing accounts as submissions, not independently verified testimony.

Her account, if accepted, would support temporary permission. But the court found that the unverified wording could not resolve the dispute with sufficient support. The receipt, presented repeatedly, remained one record of purchase—not independent proof of the later arrangement.

Salami’s position also had a gap: permission to hold property without a return date did not itself prove a gift. Nevertheless, weaknesses in his explanation could not replace Akinwale’s obligation, as the person seeking return, to prove the stronger present right.

Akinwale said she lent the ladder for weekend painting and asked for it back afterward. She maintained that her later message allowed Salami to hold it temporarily because she lacked storage space, rather than transferring ownership.

Salami argued that her permission to keep the ladder, coupled with the absence of a return date, made his possession lawful. He also submitted that her inability to verify the communication meant she had not proved a right to demand its return.

His submissions invoked a rule about ordinary wear and damage. The court found that irrelevant: no damage claim was before it.

The disputed communication was said to have followed two days after Salami collected the ladder. Akinwale’s account was that she permitted him to keep it for the time being because she had no space; Salami understood the communication as permission to retain it.

The judgment leaves ownership unresolved. It establishes only that, on the evidence presented, Akinwale did not prove an entitlement to immediate return. The ₦82,000 recorded on the receipt was the purchase price, not compensation claimed or awarded.