Sylvanus Odife & Anor. V. Geofrey Aniemeka & Ors. (1992)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

O. OGWUEGBU, J.S.C.

The plaintiffs brought an action in the High Court of the then East Central State, Onitsha Judicial Division against the defendant claiming the following reliefs:-

“1. Declaration of title to the said Odoachala land.

2. 200.00 damages for trespass.
3. An Injunction to restrain the defendants, their servants and agents from any further act of trespass on the said land.”

The plaintiffs brought the action for themselves and on behalf of the people and elders of Isienyinato Ochana, Isinyi, Nando. The defendants were sued for themselves and on behalf of Umuakiasi Ochana, Isinyi Nando.

The plaintiffs in paragraph 2 of their amended statement of claim averred that the defendants are people of Umu-Akiasi or Umuchaa Ochana Isinyi Nando in Anambra division and that they are strangers from Achanna in Awka Division.

In paragraph 3 of the said amended Statement of Claim, the plaintiffs averred:-

“The town Nando has three quarters who are not necessarily related by blood. The quarters are 1. Ikenga. 2. Ezi and 3. Ifite. Ezi has three quarters viz:-(a) Ubaru Isioye, (b) Akamanato and (c) lsinyi, lsinyi has Ochana, Umuokpalora, Etiti and Obunagu Na Mmuozu. Ochana has two sub-divisions viz:- Ezieke and Amagu. Ezieke has three divisions viz:- 1. Enuagu, 2. Umuajitora and 3. Odoti. Amagu has three divisions viz:- 1. Umu Uchaa or Umu Akiasa, 2. Umumozo, and 3. Umuiveatu. The three groups of Enuagu (1st plaintiff), Umuiveatu (2nd plaintiff) and Umumozo form the plaintiffs’ group called Isienyinato. The Isi Ana or head of Isinyi is Enuagu family of Ezieke Ochana.”

The plaintiffs averred in paragraph 4 that they are the owners in possession.

In paragraph 6, they averred that the land in dispute is part of a large area of virgin forest acquired by the plaintiffs’ forebear OGBUEVI ENUAGU who came from Aba Town in Njikoka Division and settled with his family in Inyi Forest many years ago. Inyi Fore was unoccupied virgin land and the land in dispute is in Inyi Forest. Ogbueyi Enuagu named his new found land Isinyi hence the village is called Isinyi in Nando.

In paragraph 9, the plaintiffs averred that after Ogbuevi Enuagu and his descendants had become firmly established in Isinyi village and exercised unrestricted dominion over Isinyi forest (including the land in dispute), he allowed the following groups to settle on Isinyi Forest – Ajitora, Odoti, Umuchaa, Umumozo and Umu iveatu. The families of Ogbuevi Enuagu, Umuiveatu and Umumozo integrated into his own family fold and formed Isienyinato quarter of Ochana Isinyi. The integrated families were given conditions for their integration and they took an oath. They averred that the defendants’ ancestors took the same oath and kept it until 1920.

In paragraph 2 of their further amended statement of defence the defendants denied that the plaintiffs are people of Isienyinato Ochana Nando but maintained that they are people of Ezieke Ochana Isinyi Nando. They also averred that the plaintiffs do not represent Umu-Mozo family in this action as alleged. The defendants went on to aver that they are people of Umu-Uchaa and Umu-Mozo Amagu Ochana Nando. They denied that they are ever called Umu Akiasa. They stated that they are not strangers as alleged by the plaintiffs.

In paragraph 3 (a) of their amended statement of defence, the defendants denied that there is any group of people known by the name “lsienyinato”. They also averred that they are owners in possession of the land in dispute from time beyond human memory having inherited same from their ancestors DIOKE and DUMALI. The case was tried on the pleadings.

After assessing and evaluating the evidence of the parties, the trial Judge held that the traditional evidence led by the plaintiffs appeared more credible than that of the defendants. He declared that plaintiffs were entitled to the Customary right of Occupancy over the piece of land in dispute, awarded N50.00 as general damages and made an order of injunction against the defendants.

The defendants were aggrieved and dissatisfied with the decision of the trial court. They appealed to the Court of Appeal and complained of various irregularities in the trial.