Nathaniel Onwuka Ajero & Anor. V. Bernard Ugorji & Ors. (1999)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

I. L. KUTIGI, J.S.C. 

In their Amended Statement of claim the Plaintiff’s claims against the Defendants jointly and severally,it reads as follows-

“(a) A declaration of title to those certain THREE pieces or parcels of land known as and called ISIUGWU, ISIMKPA AND UZI situate at Ubaha Nsulu, Northern Ngwa Division, the annual value whereof is N30,00 (Thirty Naira):

(b) N2, 000.00 (Two Thousand Naira) being special and general damages for the acts of trespass committed by the Defendants on the said lands since the 22nd day of July, 1974 and;

(c) Perpetual injunction to restrain the Defendants by themselves, by their servants, agents and otherwise from committing further acts of trespass on the said parcels of land.”

Pleadings were ordered, filed and exchanged. Thereafter the case proceeded to trial. At the trial two witnesses testified for the Plaintiffs. The Defendants who were served with the hearing notices consistently absented themselves from court and they were not represented by any counsel at the hearings.

In a reserved judgment the learned trial judge entered judgment in favour of the Plaintiffs against the Defendants jointly and severally in the following terms:-

“(1) A declaration that the plaintiffs are entitled to the customary right of occupancy of the three pieces of land known as and called Isiugwu, lsinmkpa and Uzi situate at Ubaha Nsulu in lsiala Ngwa Judicial Division and clearly verged red in Survey Plan No. MEC/489/74 – AB tendered as exhibit A in this case.

(2) N300.00 general damages against the 1st, 2nd and 5th defendants.

(3) Perpetual injunction restraining the defendants by themselves their servants agents or workmen from entering the land in dispute and doing any manner of work therein.”

Aggrieved by the judgment of the trial High Court, the Defendants appealed to the Court of Appeal holden at Port-Harcourt. In their brief they formulated the following three issues for determination by that court –

“(1) Whether the learned trial judge was right in holding that on the scanty and contradicting evidence before him the respondents were entitled to judgment:

(2) Whether it was justified to deny the parties their constitutional right to address the court at the conclusion of evidence as provided by law.

(3) Whether the appellants were given a fair hearing in the case.”