James Uluba & Co Vs Chief E.e. Sillo & Co (1973)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

ELIAS JSC. 

This is an appeal from the judgment of Obaseki, J., in the High Court, Warri, Mid-Western State, in which the plaintiffs for themselves and on behalf of Omadinor people claimed as per their Writ of Summons against the defendants for themselves and on behalf of Okenrenghigho people as follows:

(1) Possessory title to all that piece or parcel of land known and described as “Okenrenghigho” in Warri Division in the plan filed and tendered by the plaintiffs in case No. W/29/1951: Chief E. E. Sillo & Ors. v. Adurumokumor & Ors.

(2) An order of court that the defendants do pay to the plaintiffs an annual rent of £100 (One Hundred Pounds) or such amount as may be found due to the plaintiffs, for the occupation, use and enjoyment of the said piece or parcel of plaintiffs’ land at Okenrenghigho.

(3) An order of injunction restraining the defendants and their agents and/or servants from demanding and collecting tents or dues from plaintiffs’ tenants on the said land or other users of the said land.” The plaintiffs are Itsekiris and natives of Omadinor village in Ode-Itsekiri District of Delta Province, while the defendants are Ijaws residing at what the Itsekiris called Okenrenghigho (or Okenghigho) village but which the Ijaws called Okenrenkoko. Because of the importance of the averments, the relevant paragraphs of the plaintiffs’ amended Statement of Claim are set out as follows:

“3. Over five hundred years ago plaintiffs’ ancestor migrated from a place known as Ode in Yoruba area and founded Okenghigho. In course of time it was observed that the place was not big enough for their number which was systematically increasing, and it became necessary for other settlement like Aghigho, Akpata and finally Omadino to be made. Okenghigho (or Okenrenghigbo) was then used as a camp or village for seasonal fishing. 4. After sometime one Princess Iye of Itsekiri land whose mother was a descendant of plaintiffs’ ancestor made a request from plaintiffs’ people to allow her to use Okenrenghigbo as a temporary habitation for the several slaves she had, and this was allowed.

She was then living in the Benin River area. As time went by, an Ijaw man by name Akpatah went to Chanomi, son of Princess Iye to allow him and his people and families to settle on a portion of Okenrenghigho land, and this was also allowed after Shanomi had obtained the consent of plaintiffs’ ancestors at Omadino village. 5. In recognition of the rights of Omadino people to Okenrenghigho where they lived and fished, Akpatah and his people paid homage and customary rents to Omadino people during the latter’s annual festivals. Later, the early Ijaw settlers were followed by other Ijaw people who came there to fish, and the practice of paying customary rent every year continued. 6. In the same way, some of the other settlements founded and owned by the Omadino community were occupied by other groups of Ijaw people who also paid their customary rents to plaintiffs.

PAGE| 2 7. After some time the Ijaws at Bakokodia demanded and received rents and other dues from the users of Bakokodia and Akpata land and creeks. When Omadino people asked for such monies to be refunded to them the Ijaw people refused, and continued to lay claim to the whole area of land. 8. In pursuance of their claim Omadino people instituted an action against the Ijaw people in 1951, claiming a declaration to title to the land, and the case, (Suit No. W/29/51: Chief E. E. Sillo & Ors. v. Adurumokumor & Ors. ended in favour of the Omadino community. The said case, together with the plan used in it will be founded upon at the hearing of this action.

9. After the judgment in suit No. W/29/51 had been entered in favour of the plaintiffs, Adurumokumor and the people of Bakokodia who were the defendants in the case continued to use the land without any regard for the interests of the plaintiffs or the judgments against them. 10. The Ijaws, i.e. the people of Bakokodia continued to place tenants on the land and also disturbed plaintiffs’ tenants and other users of the land. They made it highly difficult for the plaintiffs to demand and collect rents and tributes from the people using the land and waters.

11. Whereupon the plaintiffs were obliged to bring another action against Adurumokumor in Warri High Court in 1961. The Writ of Summons in the case, Suit No. W/37/61: Chief E.E. Sillo & Anor. v. Adurumukumor together with the Supreme Court judgment (SC. 393/64) will be founded upon at the hearing of this case. 12. A few years ago it was observed that the defendants were not paying their usual customary rent, and were also collecting dues and rents from plaintiffs’ tenants on the land. 13. The defendants have continued to occupy and use the said land. The village or area occupied by the defendants and which is the subject matter in dispute is shown on the plan No. W/GA88/62, drawn by a licenced Surveyor Mr. G. A.Obianwu and filed with this Statement of Claim. This was also the plan used in the case by the plaintiffs against Adurumokumor and others in Suit No.W/29/1951.

14. At the time plaintiffs occupied the land in dispute the defendants were unknown and plaintiffs ancestors exercised maximum rights of ownership and possession over the said land. The rights of ownership were enjoyed without any secrecy and hindrance and these rights were known and accepted by the defendants. 15. The defendants have not been paying any rents or dues to the plaintiffs for the use and occupation of the said land for some years and have also not ceased collecting rents from plaintiffs’ tenants and other users of the land.  

Pleadings were ordered and filed. The defendants by their own amended Statement of Defence began with a general traverse, admitted that Omadino village is in the Itsekiri District of Delta Province, denied paragraph 3, 4,5 and 6 of the amended Statement of Claim, averred that they were not in a position to admit or deny paragraph 7, 8, 9,10 and 11 of the Statement of Claim as they were neither parties nor privies to, not were they even aware of, the disputes referred to therein, further denied paragraph 14 and averred that the plaintiffs as Yorubas were not entitled to their claim in paragraph 15 of the Statement of Claim against them.

Their most important replies are, however, contained in the following paragraphs of their Amended Statement of Defence; “5. In regard to the aforesaid paragraphs 3, 4,5 and 6, the defendants further aver as follows: (a) That the village now called Omadino was originally an Ijaw village. Its founder Oweizibri at a time now beyond human memory was an Ijaw who named the place Amaduno which in the Ijaw language meant a public fishing pond, in a town or village. (b) After settling there for several years, certain Yoruba immigrants arrived Amaduno and asked permission of Oweizibri to settle near him. He granted their request and they settled. Later, as the population increased in the place, due largely to the influx of more Yorubas, the two settlements of Yorubas and Ijaws merged together but the Ijaw section of it till the present day is called Idumi-Ijaw. (c) The aforementioned Oweizibri was a brother to one Akpata, defendants’ ancestor and founder of Okenrenkoko. When Akpata arrived at Okenrenkoko and camped there, no Itsekiri, Yoruba or persons of tribes other than Ijaw were in the area now in dispute.

The time is now beyond human memory, long before Prince Ginuwa drifted in his box from a creek near Benin into the Ijaw area of the Niger Delta. The descendants of Akpata are the rightful owners of Okenrenkoko who lived in peace with Prince Ginuwa and his descendants. 8. The defendants also deny paragraph 12 of the Statement of Claim and further state in reply thereof that defendants have always collected rents from tenants on the land in dispute in their own rights as owners.

PAGE| 3 9. With regard to paragraph 13 of the Statement of Claim defendants assert that their ancestors were the original founders of Okenrenkoko and have ever lived there in their own rights as owners in possession. They have always exercised maximum rights of ownership and user over the land and creeks in dispute without the interference of plaintiffs whose ancestors are Yorubas.

Defendants are not in a position to deny or admit that Plan No. W/GA88/62 was the one used in Plaintiffs’ case against Adurumokumor and others in Suit No.W/29/1951. 12. Even if the plaintiffs had at any time the rights claimed in this action (which are denied by defendants) the defendants will contend that the said rights are no longer enforceable against them by reason of plaintiffs laches and acquiescence, lapse of time and defendants long possession of

Other Citation: (1973) LCN/1771(SC)