Chief Daniel Allison Ibuluya & Ors v. Tom Benebo Dikibo & Ors (1976)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

D. A. R. ALEXANDER, C.J.N. 

The plaintiffs, who are the respondents in this appeal, are the representatives of members of the Dikibo House of Okrika, and claimed in the High Court of Rivers State the sum of 1,000pounds (N12,000.00) damages from the defendants who are the appellants in this appeal and the representatives of the Ibuluya House of Okrika, for trespass to land situated at a waterfront in their possession and occupation. The plaintiffs also claimed an order for perpetual injunction to restrain the defendants from further acts of trespass.

Pleadings were filed and delivered. The trial proceeded before Allagoa J. and judgment was duly delivered by him in favour of the plaintiffs who were awarded N1800.00 general damages and granted an order of injunction restraining the defendants from further acts of trespass on the land the subject matter of the action.

The defendants, being dissatisfied with this decision appealed to this Court.

Learned counsel for the appellants argued three grounds of appeal which are as follows:

“(vii) The learned trial judge erred in law in granting an injunction against the defendants when it was not clear that the plaintiffs, had exclusive rights over the land in dispute.

(ix) The learned trial judge erred in law in finding against the appellants on the plaintiffs’ claims for trepass and injunction when exhibit ‘B’ shows that the ownership of the land in dispute is jointly vested in both families and occupation or improvement on the land by either or the two families cannot, in law, confer either exclusive ownership or exclusive possession on either of the families.”

Exhibit “B” referred to above is the judgment of Ayo Williams Esq.,

Magistrate, dismissing an appeal by members of Ibuluya House against a member of Dikibo House from the decision of a Native Court, in favour of Dikibo House, in respect of land in dispute between them.

“(v) The learned trial judge admitted inadmissible evidence, to wit, the evidence of Ned Ockiya (2nd plaintiffs’ witness), and that there is no sufficient evidence to sustain the decision after rejecting such inadmissible evidence.”

The remaining grounds filed (Nos. (i), (ii), (iii), (iv), (vi) and (viii) were abandoned.

Arguing grounds (vii) and (ix) together, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the ownership of the land, the subject matter of the action, is vested in the Community consisting of both Houses, namely, Ibuluya House and Dikibo House and that, consequently, the land is jointly owned. He further submitted that:

(1) once title to land is vested in a community, one section cannot sue the other section for trespass or injunction;

(2) possession of such land is vested in the community as a whole and not in any section thereof, and