Damulak Dashi & Ors. V. Stephen Satlong & Anor (2009)
LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report
F. TABAI, J.S.C
This appeal is against the judgment of the Jos Judicial Division of the Court of Appeal on the 23rd of May 2002. The original action itself was commenced at the Upper Area Court, Pankshin in Plateau State sometime in 1994. The Plaintiffs therein are the Appellants in this Court. And the Defendants therein are the Respondents before us. The claim is expressed in the opening statement of learned counsel for the Plaintiffs Chris Ekeakhogbe at page 8 of the record. He said:-
“The Plaintiffs’ claim is for a declaration of title to a piece of farm land situated at Minting in Chip District of Pankshin Local Government Council. The Defendant is a customary tenant to the Plaintiff and is now denying the Plaintiffs’ title. Hence he does no longer comply with the traditional requirements of customary tenancy. The Plaintiffs therefore wish to retake possession and seeks a declaration of title in their favour.” This is reproduced by the trial Upper Area Court in its judgment at pages 34-35 of the record,
The Defendants denied the claim and their denial is recorded at page 8 of the record as follows:
“I deny the claim; this is because the piece of land is mine. This is so because my father cleared the land 26 years ago. The land was formerly a bush which served as hunting ground for the District Head of Chip. In 1986, I sued one Irimiya Topsin who is a brother of the Plaintiff in respect of this farmland in this Court. The judgment was in my favour. Since then I have been farming the land until 1993 when Irimiya handed out the land to the Plaintiff.”
The above is also reproduced by the trial Upper Area Court in its judgment at page 35 of the record. The above clearly capture the claim and the defence. The Defendants/Respondents raised the plea of Res Judicata as part of their defence to the action.
The matter then went to trial wherein seven witnesses testified for the Plaintiff’s case and four for the defence. And in the presence of the parties and their witnesses, except the 2nd Defendant, the court visited the land in dispute. Two sets of documents were tendered by the Defendants and were admitted as Exhibits “A” and “B”. By its judgment on the 13/8/96 the plea of Res Judicata was held to be successful and the claim was struck out.
The Plaintiffs were not satisfied and went on appeal to the Plateau State Customary Court of Appeal. The court expressed the view that it was unable to fault the judgment of the trial court and so dismissed the appeal. This was in its judgment on the 11th of June 1998. Still dissatisfied, the Plaintiff went on further appeal to the Court of Appeal. In its judgment on the 23rd of May 2002, the appeal was dismissed. The Plaintiffs are still aggrieved and have come on further appeal to this Court. The Notice of Appeal was dated and filed on the 17/7/2002. It contained eight grounds of appeal. In this Court, the parties have filed and exchanged their Briefs of Argument. The Appellants’ Brief was prepared by C.O. Ekeakhogbe and same was dated the 9th of November 2002 and filed on the 18/11/2002. The Respondents’ Brief was prepared by Daniel Gopep. It was dated and filed on the 31/1/2003. In the Appellants’ Brief, five Issues for determination were formulated in the following terms:
ONE
Whether the Appellants were estopped from relitigating on this land by the principle of estoppel per rem judicatam and/or guilty of the doctrine of standing by.
TWO
Whether the Appellants proved their title to the land in dispute and if they did, were they not entitled to the declaration sought.
THREE
Whether the Appellants proved that the Respondents were their customary tenants and if the answer is in the affirmative, does the long possession of the disputed land by the Respondents a presumption of their ownership.
Leave a Reply