Raphael Egwuonwu Nkwo & Ors V. S.A. Uchendu & Anor (1996)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

OGWUEGBU, J.S.C.

The plaintiffs’ claim in the Amawbia/ Awka Judicial Division of the High Court of the then Anambra State holden at Awka is set out in paragraph 33 of the amended statement of claim and reads:

“Wherefore, the plaintiffs claim against the defendants jointly and severally as follows:-

(a) The sum of N500,000.00 being general damages for the trespass committed by the defendants on the plaintiffs’ land called Igbariam and Ofia Udo;

(b) Perpetual injunction restraining the defendants by their servants or agents from further trespass to the said land, .

(c) A declaration that the plaintiffs are the persons entitled or deemed to be entitled to the customary right of occupancy to the said Igbariam and Ofia Udo land.”

At the close of pleadings and after various amendments by both parties the case proceeded to trial. Uyanna J. as he then was dismissed the plaintiffs claim in its entirety. Their appeal to the Court of Appeal, Enugu Division coram Kutigi, Oguntade and Uwaifo, J.J.C.A. was unanimously dismissed. The plaintiffs have now appealed to this court on four grounds of appeal. The defendants also cross-appealed against the same judgment. I will in the course of the judgment refer to the appellants as plaintiffs and the cross-appellants as the defendants.

In their brief of argument, the plaintiffs identified the following issues as arising for determination in the main appeal:

“1. Whether there is any basis for the Court of Appeal to hold, as it did, that Mgbom people were the landlords of the Ndiowu people;

2. Whether there is any legal basis for the Court of Appeal to hold that the 1956 case (Exhibits F and G) were between the present plaintiffs, the people of Ndiowu, and the people of Umuagu Ufuma;
3. Since the lands involved in Exhibits E, E1 and F and G (the 1916 and 1956 cases) could not be ascertained with any certainty, whether the Court of Appeal was right to hold that the plaintiffs were caught by the doctrine of issue estoppel and their action must fail;
4. Whether, in the circumstances of this case, the Court of Appeal was right in holding that the plaintiffs’ case failed on the basis of the 1956 case, and it was not necessary to consider the evidence of traditional history, or whether the Court of Appeal ought to have entered judgment for the plaintiffs based on their traditional history which was not controverted.

In the defendants view, the following issues arise for determination in the main appeal:

“(a) Whether the people of Ndiowu are privies of the Mgbom people for the purposes of estoppel; and

(b) Whether the Court of Appeal was correct in holding that the appellants were caught by the doctrine of estoppel.”

In the cross-appeal, the defendants submitted the following issues for determination:

“Whether the trial Court was justified in holding that the people of Ndiowu were estopped from relitigating the issue of title to the land in dispute or In the alternative Whether on the materials in the Record the Court of Appeal was justified in holding that the plea of estoppel per rem judicatam could not succeed”