Eme Ndukwe V. Uma Acha & Ors (1998)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

MOHAMMED, J.S.C.

The proceedings giving rise to this appeal were commenced by the appellant as plaintiff before Abengowe J of Imo State High Court, sitting at Ohafia. In the High Court the appellant sued the respondents on behalf of himself and as representative of the people of Uwa Iku maternal family of Ebem Ohafia. In the Statement of Claim the appellant claimed against the respondents (Defendants at the trial court) jointly and severally, for the following reliefs:

(1) A declaration of title to a piece of land known as, and called Awa-Otolu, situate at Ohafia in the Ohafia Judicial Division, at the annual rent of N10.00.

(ii) N1,000 general damages for trespass:

(iii) Perpetual injunction restraining the defendants, her servants, workmen and/or agents from entering into any part, or in anyway, interfering with the said land”.

Pleadings were filed and exchanged. In a well considered Judgment, at the end of the trial, the learned trial Judge found that the plaintiff/appellant had failed to prove the traditional history he relied on, the identity of the land and the precise nature of his claim. For those reasons the court dismissed the claim. Dissatisfied with the High Court’s decision, the appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal affirmed the decision of the High Court and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant has finally reached this court on five grounds of appeal. I will reproduce the five grounds of appeal but shorn of their particulars because I find the issues raised on those grounds by the learned counsel for the respondents more apt for the determination of this appeal. The five grounds, without their particulars, read as follows:

“(1). That the learned Court of Appeal Judges erred in law and in fact when they found for the respondents that the root of title to the land in dispute is a triable issue when the parties agreed that they are descended from a common matrilineal ancestor, the founder of the land in dispute.

(2) That the Court of Appeal misdirected itself on the question of the meaning of the land in dispute and the branch of the family of the appellant.

(3) That the Court of Appeal erred in law and in fact when they found that partition of the land in dispute had not been pleaded and established in evidence by the appellant.

(4) That the Court of Appeal erred in law and in fact and misdirected itself in respect of the findings of the arbitration of Ebem elders.

(5) The Court of Appeal erred in law and in fact and misdirected itself on the question of damages for trespass and injunction claimed by the appellant”.

The issues identified by the learned counsel for the respondents for the determination of the appeal are six and are listed below:

“1 Whether the appellant proved his root of title.