George Okafor & Ors. V. Eze A.e. Idigo Iii & Ors. (1984)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

OBASEKI J.S.C. 

The parties to this appeal have been locked in litigation over a piece of land called Otuocha for a period of over 50 years. Since 1933, four actions have been instituted in the superior courts of record in this country. The first was in 1933, the second in 1935, the third in 1950 and this action now on appeal in 1975. The 1933, 1935 and 1950 actions were instituted by the Umuleri people (the appellants herein), while this action was instituted by the Aguleri people (the respondents herein),

The main issue or question for determination in this appeal is whether the ownership to the land in dispute i.e. Otuocha land has been established as required by law to entitle them, i.e. the Aguleri people to the declaration of title granted them by the Court of Appeal, the High Court having held a contrary view.

The genesis of this matter briefly, is as follows:

On the 12th day of June, 1975, the respondents instituted an action suit No. 0/98/1975 against the appellants in the High Court of the East Central State of Nigeria claiming in terms of the writ:

“1. Declaration of title to a piece of land known as Otuocha in this Judicial Division [i.e. Onitsha Judicial Division].

2. Perpetual injunction to restrain the defendants, their agents, servants and assigns from building houses on or trespassing into portions of this land.”

On the order of the court, pleadings were filed and delivered or served and the issue joined came up for hearing before Nnaemeka-Agu, J. Nnaemeka-Agu, J. in the course of the trial, after hearing the evidence of 5 witnesses called by the plaintiffs, was appointed a Justice of the Court of Appeal and had to discontinue the hearing. The matter then came up before Umezinwa, J. He began the trial de novo. He heard the evidence of the parties and their witnesses – 14 witnesses testified at the instance of the plaintiffs while 7 witnesses testified at the instance of the defendants. After the close of the defence, the court inspected the locus in quo, i.e. the land in dispute. At the conclusion of the inspection, the learned trial judge heard the addresses of counsel for the parties and adjourned for judgment. He finally delivered his judgment on the 12th day of June, 1978 dismissing the plaintiffs’ claim in the following terms:

“Waddington, J. in the 1935 case stated as follows –

‘one point should be mentioned on which I do believe Idigo, and that is that for the past 10 years farmers of both villages have used the land, a situation which is consistent with neither possessing exclusive ownership. Those considerations can, in my opinion, lead to only one result and that is that upon this evidence, it is impossible to draw any definite conclusion’.

In the 1950 case, the Privy Council observed thus –

‘Their Lordships do, however, agree with the view to be collected from Hubbard, F. J.’s judgment as a whole that little, if any assistance is to be found in the various acts of ownership on either side which took place between 25th June, 1898, and the abandonment of the land by the Crown.’

Having considered the whole evidence led in this case and submissions made, I have found myself in no better position to draw any definite conclusion. The plaintiffs have not proved to my satisfaction on the balance of probability that they are the exclusive owners of the land in dispute. Plaintiffs’ claims therefore fail and are accordingly dismissed.”

The plaintiffs were dissatisfied with the decision and so appealed to the Federal Court of Appeal against the judgment. Three grounds of appeal were filed. They were, in the main, grounds of fact or of mixed law and fact and briefly are as follows:

“(1) the decision is against the weight of evidence;