CORAM
IRIKEFE JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT BELLO JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT IDIGBE JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT OBASEKI JU
KABIRI-WHYTEJUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
WALTER SAMUEL NKANU ONNOGHEN, JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL
BELGORE JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
PARTIES
CHIEF OBI J.I.G. ONYIA (For himself and as Representing the entire people of UMUEZEI FAMILY OF ASABA
APPELLANTS
LOUIS ONIAH
IWEGBUNAM E. AKARAIWE
GEORGE OGADI (For themselves and as Representing the people of OKWE ASABA)
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
APPEAL- LAND LAW -CUSTOMARY TENANCY – TRESPASS- FORFEITURE
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The appellants, who were customary tenants of the respondents in respect of certain areas of land, entered into other lands belonging to the respondents and claimed ownership of the entire lands. The trial court failed to order forfeiture because of the social consequences it may cause. ?
HELD
The court held the respondents’ action in trespass in respect of the land entered into by the appellants ought to succeed and that the appellants were liable in forfeiture of the areas in which they were customary tenants. ?
ISSUES
1. Were the learned justices of the Court of Appeal right in holding that a customary tenant in possession can be made liable in trespass?
2. Whether the justices of the Court of Appeal can reverse the finding of fact on the evidence of the witnesses made by the trial judge?
3. Whether the Justices of the Court of Appeal are right in law to grant injunction to a customary landlord whose only interest in the land is the reversion?
4. Was the Court of Appeal right in dismissing the appeal in respect of the trial judge’s refusal to grant the claim for forfeiture on the ground that the Plaintiffs had waived their right to forfeiture when the defendants did not claim relief from forfeiture AND waiver was not pleaded or made an issue in the High Court.
RATIONES DECIDENDI
WHEN THE DUTY OF THE TRIAL COURT TO EVALUATE EVIDENCE CAN BE INTERFERED WITH BY THE COURT OF APPEAL
It is pre-eminently the duty of the trial court to appraise and evaluate evidence given at the trial, and the Court of Appeal may not disturb such evidence merely because it would have arrived at a different conclusion on the same facts – See Ogundulu v. Phillips (1973) NMLR 267 Okoye v. Ejofor (1934) 2 WACA. 130. The Court of Appeal is however entitled to interfere when it is satisfied that the decision of the trial court is wrong- Karibi- Wyhte J.S.C
WHETHER JUDGMENT CAN BE GIVEN OUTSIDE THE ISSUES RAISED BEFORE THE COURT
A judgment must be confined to the issues raised on the pleadings. Where it is otherwise the court will be making a case for the parties by formulating its own case from the evidence and then proceeding to give judgment. This approach has always been rejected- Karibi- Wyhte J.S.C
DETERMINATION OF CUSTOMARY TENANCY
Forfeiture is the usual mode for determining a customary tenancy. The real basis of the misconduct or misbehaviour which renders the tenancy liable to forfeiture is the challenge to the title of the overlord. This may be by alienation of part of the land, under claim of ownership, refusal to pay the tribute due or indeed, direct denial of overlord’s title by setting up a rival title in the customary tenant himself, as in the instant case- Karibi- Wyhte J.S.C
CASES CITED
Ogundulu v. Phillips (1973) NMLR 267
Okoye v. Ejofor (1934) 2 WACA. 130
Onowan v. Iserhein (1976) 1 NMLR 263
Ochonma v. Unosi (1965) NMLR 321.
Ojogbue & Anor v. Nnubia & Ors. (1972) 1 All NLR (pt.2) 226
STATUTES REFERRED TO
Not Available