Chief M.O.A. Agbaisi & Ors Vs E. Ebikorefe & Ors (1997)
LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report
ONU, JSC.
This appeal which relates to land disputes originated from the Warri High Court of the Warri Judicial Division, of the defunct Mid-Western State of Nigeria but later of the defunct Bendel (and now Delta) State. It composed of six separate suits which by the order of the trial High Court and by the consent of the parties thereto dated 20th May, 1976, were consolidated into single suit.
The suits consolidated were Nos. W/75/74, W/10/ 75, W/103/75, W/104/75, W/147/75 and W/160/75 in which the communities, families, villages, etc. to which the parties belong, sued or were sued in a representative and/or personal capacities. In the order of consolidation, the plaintiffs in two of the aforementioned actions vide W/147/75 and W/160/75, who were alone in claiming the entire land in dispute were designated as “plaintiffs” whilst the others, vide W/75f74, W/10/75, W/I03/75 and W/104/75 were designated “defendants.”
In the somewhat chequered history of the consolidated suits giving rise to the appeal herein, the filing of pleadings began in December, 1975 and ended after hearing commenced in December, 1979. In the interval, the plaintiffs (hereinafter referred to as appellants) amended their statement of claim in Suit No. W/147/75 whilst the defendants- (in the rest of this judgment referred to as respondents) further amended their amended statement of claim in Suits W/75/74 and W/10/75.
There was an earlier hearing before Aluyi, J. which had commenced in December, 1977 but was aborted in March, 1978 after a few witnesses had been taken. The 2nd appellant who himself testified in support of their (plaintiffs’) case called altogether fifteen witnesses whilst the respondents called ten witnesses including the two defendants (respondents herein). In a well considered judgment Eluaka, J. on 23rd July, 1982 found against the appellants and in favour of the respondents by making the followings findings of fact:
(1) That Exhibit C, the plan filed by the defendants is a more accurate plan, and preferred by the court to Exhibit “A”, (Plaintiffs’ plan.)
(2) That there are no ruins of Agbaisi village on the land in dispute. This is confirmed by the surveyors called by both sides.
(3)That there being a conflict in traditional evidence he would have recourse to other acts on the land in dispute.
(4) Contrary to the pleadings of the plaintiffs and their evidence in court, there are no buildings in existence, at least soon after pleadings were ordered on the parcels of land (in dispute) verged purple, yellow and deep blue.
(5) That the defendants’ version about buildings on the land is to be preferred to plaintiffs.
(6) That the defendants’ story as to what transpired following their report of plaintiffs’ “trespass” on the land to the Agbassa Chiefs is believed as against plaintiffs.’ Chief Agara’s failure to participate in any of the consolidated suits confirms this
(7) That Ugborikoko village and other lands of the defendants are more adjacent to the land in dispute.
(8) That the conflict in the evidence of P.W. 1 – plaintiffs’ surveyor, particularly on the presence (or absence) of buildings on various parts of the land in dispute cannot be treated as a mere slip of the memory, as submitted by plaintiffs’ counsel.
(9) That P.W. 2- George Poko is “very unreliable and not a witness of truth.”
Leave a Reply