Chief Nsidintak Bassey & Anor V. Chief Asuquo Ekanem & Anor (1953)

Real property—Rights offishing—Watercourse. Minerals Ordinance, section 3—Rights of Crown in rivers, etc.

Facts

In the Supreme Court the plaintiffs (for the people of Idere) sued the defendants (for the people of Atan) for a declaration of title to a fishing pond “property of the plaintiffs ” and for damages for trespass; they succeeded and
the defendants appealed.

The evidence showed that the ” pond ” was part of a series of creeks or streams linked with a river. The plaintiffs (respondents) were the occupiers of land on one bank of the so-called pond and claimed the fishing rights in relation to their rights to that land. The defendants (appellants) alleged that the fishing rights were enjoyed communally by themselves and other people.

The Minerals Ordinance by section 3 (first enacted in 1916) vests the property in and control of all rivers, streams and watercourses in the Crown. It was not adverted to in the Court below and its effect on rights of piscatory in the case was not considered.

There was no evidence whether the streams involved in the case were a part of tidal waters (and affected by Braide v. Adoki, 10 N.L.R., p. 15, which decided that all inhabitants had common rights of piscatory in tidal waters in view of the said section 3) or non-tidal (on which there is no case decided on fishing rights).

Held on appeal

There being no evidence on whether or not the waters in which rights of fishing were claimed were a part of tidal waters, the judgment of the Court below would be set aside and a non-suit entered; and the Law Officers would be informed in view of section 3 of the Minerals Ordinance.

Judgment set aside; non-suit entered.