Emmanuel Okpala Igwego & Ors. V. Fidelis Ojukwu Ezeugo & Anor. (1992)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

O. OGWUEGBU, J.S.C. 

The appellants were defendants in the High Court of the then Anambra State holden at Awka. They were sued by the respondents who were plaintiffs in the said court. The respondents on record brought the action for themselves and as representing the members of Ezeugo sub-family of Umu Eze Family in Adazi-Ani, Anambra State.

The appellants were sued in their personal capacities.

In paragraph 18 of the Statement of Claim, the respondents claimed from the appellants jointly and severally as follows:-

“(a) Declaration of title under Customary Law to the plaintiffs’ pieces or parcels of land known as EZEUGO lands situate in Umueze family of Adazi-Ani and clearly shown on the Plan E/GA.1054/75;

(b) N200.00 (Two Hundred Naira) damages for trespass;

(c) Perpetual injunction restraining the defendants, their servants and/or agents from further entry into the said land.”

The action was tried on pleadings filed and exchanged by both parties. After hearing evidence the trial Judge entered judgment against the appellants in all the three legs of the claim. They appealed to the Court of Appeal and their appeal was dismissed. They have now appealed to this court against that judgment. The appellants and the respondents filed their amended briefs of argument on 10th June and 17th September, 1991 respectively.

The appellants filed eleven grounds of appeal. In their amended brief of argument they identified eight issues for determination in the appeal, namely:-

“(1) Was the Court of Appeal right in holding that the defendants/appellants were estopped per rem judicatam by the decision of the so-called Peace Committee or L.C.D.C. (Local Civil Defence Committee) or the Committee on War Effort

(2)(a) Was the Court of Appeal right in holding, that UKU-NA-UMUOGU decided nothing when the dispute between the parties was referred to it for arbitration

(b) If the answer to question (2)(a) is in the negative, were the plaintiffs/respondents not estopped per rem judicatam by the decision of the Uku-na-Umuogu from maintaining or prosecuting the present suit

‘(3) Was the Court of Appeal right in confirming the judgment of the trial court on the traditional history of the parties

(4)’ Was the Court of Appeal right in holding that the trial court was not affected or influenced in its judgment by the issue of abandonment which the trial court itself introduced into the case