Odua Esiaka & Ors V. Vincent Obiasogwu & Ors (1952)

LawGlobal Hub Judgment Report – West African Court of Appeal

Inter-Tribal Boundaries Settlement Ordinance—Boundary settled thereunder—Parties to the dispute.
Estoppel—People whose title is involved standing by in dispute.

Facts

The appellants, as plaintiffs in the Court below, claimed for their people an area of land. The defendants disputed the claim and asserted that owing to a dispute between their people and the plaintiffs’ people flaring up when the plaintiffs pledged that land to someone, there was an inquiry under the above Ordinance which fixed the boundary and that was the correct boundary between the parties.

Prior to the inquiry the defendants, who disputed the pledge made by the plaintiffs, took actions in the Native Court in respect of the land; so did the plaintiffs and their pledgee. Those actions were withdrawn by the plaintiffs and the defendants for the purpose of an inquiry under the Ordinance.

The defendants in the Court below relied on the boundary settled by the decision in the inquiry as concluding the plaintiffs from maintaining the present action; the plaintiffs’ answer was that it was not an inter-tribal settlement within the said Ordinance but a settlement between their pledgee in his personal capacityand the defendants’ tribe.

The administrative officer xVho made that inquiry was alive to this point; he found and recorded that the pledgee was representing the plaintiffs’ people. At the inquiry plaintiffs’ own Chief gave evidence supporting the pledgee’s claim to the land, a claim derived from the title set up by the plaintiffs, and showed the inquiring officer the boundaries of the land claimed by the plaintiffs; and in the present action their witnesses admitted that their people knew of that inquiry and were interested in the dispute.

The trial Judge held that the title of the pledgee was identical with plaintiffs’ title; that he was fighting their battle and they were supporting him by deputing representatives to testify as to their title in the inquiry; that they were presumed to have authorised him to conduct the proceedings in the inquiry; that in fact they were parties and were bound by the settlement of the boundary decided in the inquiry.

The plaintiffs appealed.

Held

By abandoning the actions in the Native Court the plaintiffs’ people assented to the inquiry and elected to be represented by their pledgee, and they took part in the inquiry; therefore the settlement of the boundary made in the inquiry was conclusive and binding on them whether as a party to the inquiry—which they were—or (if they were not a party) because they stood by and allowed their pledgee to fight the battle about their title.

Appeal dismissed.