S. U. Ojemen & Ors V. His Highness William O. Momodu & Ors (1983)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

OBASEKI, J.S.C.

The appellants were defendants to an action instituted on the 22nd day of August, 1974, in the High Court of Justice, Mid Western State of Nigeria now High Court of Justice, Bendel State holden at Ubiaja by the respondents who, as plaintiffs, claimed:

“(1) A declaration that the first, third and fourth defendants as the customary tenants of the plaintiffs have forfeited their rights to occupy the portions of plaintiffs’ piece or parcel of land situate and lying at Irma within the Ubiaja judicial division which said portions of land are shown verged yellow in the plaintiffs’ Plan No. MWC/719/77 filed with the amended statement of claim;

(2) Recovery of possession of the said portions of land from the first, third and fourth defendants.

(3) N2,00.00 (Two thousand Naira) being damages suffered by the plaintiffs as a result of the defendants trespassing on the portion of the plaintiffs’ piece or parcel of land shown verged PINK but excluding the areas shown verged yellow in the plaintiffs’ Plan No. MWC/719/77.

(4) Injunction restraining the defendants by themselves their servants and/or agents from

(i) Unlawfully entered entering any portion of the plaintiffs’ said land a portion of which is shown verged GREEN in the plaintiffs’ said plan

(ii) Doing any act which challenges the plaintiffs’ right to possession of the said land.”

Pleadings were ordered, settled, filed and served and the issues joined eventually came before Uwaifo, J. for trial. After hearing evidence and submissions of counsel, Uwaifo, J. delivered a well-considered judgment finding in favour of the plaintiffs/respondents in the following terms in the concluding paragraph of the said judgment.

“I am satisfied that customary tenancy of the first, third and fourth defendants has been proved and that a case for forfeiture of that tenancy has arisen. It has also been shown conclusively that all the defendants have committed acts of trespass on the plaintiffs’ land . . . . I therefore make the following orders:

(1) A declaration that the first, third and fourth defendants as customary tenants of the plaintiffs have forfeited their rights to occupy the portions of land granted to them as shown verged yellow in the plaintiffs’ plan No. MWC/719/77 Exhibit E.

(2) Surrender of possession of the said portions of land by the first, third and fourth defendants to the plaintiffs;

(3) Perpetual injunction restraining the defendants by themselves their servants and/or agents from trespassing upon any portion of the plaintiffs’ land and shown in the said plan Exhibit E. The second arm of the injunction sought namely, to retrain the defendants from ‘doing any act which challenges the plaintiffs’ right to possession on the said land’ is too wide and I cannot grant it. For instance, that can be understood to include any legal action which the defendant may decide to bring in future to challenge the plaintiffs’ right to possession, and that in my view, cannot be prevented in this manner;

(4) N100.00 general damages for trespass against the defendants jointly and severally.