Nwankwo Oguanuhu & Ors Vs Dr. Emmanuel I. Chiegboka (2013)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

SULEIMAN GALADIMA, J.S.C

This is an appeal against the Judgment of Court of Appeal, Enugu Division, delivered on Thursday 13th February 2003. This matter culminating in the further appeal to this court, has unfortunately chequered history. This is manifested from the relevant background facts exposed hereunder.

The Respondent herein, as plaintiff first instituted this suit at the Mbamisi customary court claiming the following reliefs:

“1. A declaration of title to a Customary Rights of Occupancy to a piece of Land known as a “Ana Ukpaka Ehurie” situated at Ezioka Isuofia within the territorial limit of the Court.

2. N1,500.00 being damages for wrongful entry into the said plaintiffs land by the Defendants.
3. An order of court to prevent the Defendants further entry into the said plaintiffs land.”

The Mbamisi Customary Court gave Judgment in favour of the Plaintiff but the Appellants appealed to the Magistrate Court where the Judgment was reversed in their favour. The High Court then reversed the decision of the Magistrate Court. The Appellant appealed against the Judgment of the High Court to the Court of Appeal, which again decided in favour of the Respondent. The Respondent is therefore successful at the two Lower Courts.

The Appellants dissatisfied with the decision of the Court of Appeal, appealed to this Court. They accompanied their Notice of appeal with five grounds of appeal with the particulars. Three issues have been identified for determination of the appeal by the Appellants. They read as follows:-

“3.2. The first issue for determination is whether the land in dispute is part of Ezeabalem’s land.

3.3. The second issue for determination flows from the first; that is, even if the said land is part of Ezeabalem’s land did the plaintiff prove his root of title to the original settler and how he derived title from him.

3.4. The third issue for determination is this:- If the Plaintiff failed to prove his root of title could he take advantage of the evidence of the Defendants to reinforce non-existing root of title and did he in fact take any advantage.

The Respondent on his part has formulated four issues for determination as follows:-

“3.1. The first issue for determination is whether the Plaintiff can take advantage of the evidence of the Defendants favourable to him to prove his title.

3.2. The second issue for determination is whether the land in dispute is part of Ezeabalam’s land granted to the Plaintiff/Respondent by his father.

3.3 The 3rd issue for determination is whether from totality of evidence of the parties, whether Plaintiff proved his root of title.

3.4 The 4th issue for determination is whether the decision of the trial Customary Court that the land in dispute is part of Ezeabalam’s land granted to the Plaintiff/Respondent and which decision was upheld by the High Court and Court of Appeal is one that qualifies to be treated favourably with regards to the policy of the Supreme Court not to disturb such concurrent findings of two lower courts.”