Christopher Okolo V. Eunice Uzoka (1978)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

FATAYI-WILLIAMS, J.S.C.

This appeal is against the judgment of Aseme, J., delivered in a consolidated suit (Suit No. AA/98/72 and suit No. AA/113/72) on the 24th day of April, 1974.

The claim in suit No. AA/98/72 wherein the appellant was plaintiff and the respondent defendant was for

“(i) Declaration of customary title of ownership to a parcel of Iyiokpu land situate at Agulu, Awka the extent of which is shown on Plan No. PO/E223/72 and therein edged green;

(ii) 100 Pounds damages for trespass; and

(iiii) Perpetual injunction to restrain the defendant and her agents from further acts of trespass to the said land.”

But in suit No. AA/113/72, the respondent as plaintiff claimed against the appellant as defendant:

“1. N2000.00 (1,000 Pounds) being general damages for trespass by the defendant to John Uzoka’s compound land at Iyiokpu, Awka within jurisdiction, in the possession of the plaintiff;

2. Perpetual injunction restraining the defendant, his servants or agents, from further trespass to the said land.”

On the order of the High Court, pleadings were filed and delivered in the two suits which, on the application of the respondent, were later consolidated for hearing. At the close of the hearing, the learned trial Judge delivered a considered judgment dismissing the appellant’s claim in suit No. AA/98/72 but giving judgment in favour of the plaintiff/respondent in suit AA/113/72 as follows:-

“Finally there will be judgment for the plaintiff (Eunice Uzoka) in suit AA/113/72 for N300.00 damages for trespass. Perpetual injunction is also granted to restrain the defendant (Christopher Okolo), his servants and agents from further interference and trespass to the piece or parcel of land verged green on Plan No. OKE/D1/73 marked Exhibit H but without prejudice to the right of way of 12 feet already granted to the said Christopher Okolo by the plaintiff Eunice Uzoka on the intervention of the police.”

Three grounds of appeal were filed, but as the first ground, which reads:-

“The learned trial Judge was in error in law in not accepting the plaintiff/appellant’s traditional evidence of purchase as conclusive for decreeing title in his favour in the circumstances of this case,”

was no ground at all under the Rules of Court, it was accordingly struck out and learned counsel for the appellant proceeded to argue the remaining two grounds (of appeal) which read:-

“(2) The learned trial Judge erred in law in awarding damages for trespass to the defendant/respondent when evidence showed that prior to the trespass complained of the defendant/respondent had parted with possession of the land in dispute in favour of a third party occupier.