E.O. OKONOFUA & ANOR V. THE STATE
July 29, 2025GODWIN ANYANWU V. THE STATE
July 29, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (1981) Legalpedia (SC) 75047
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Fri May 29, 1981
Suit Number: SC. 23/1980
CORAM
MOHAMMED BELLO, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
AYO G. IRIKEFE , JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
OLABODE RHODES-VIVOUR
MOHAMMED BELLO, CHIEF JUSTICE OF NIGERIA
AUGUSTINE NNAMANI, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
PARTIES
CHIEF VICTOR WOLUCHEM & ORS (For themselves and as representing the people of Elekohia, Diobu.) APPELLANTS
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The appellants /plaintiffs filed a suit in the High Court of Eastern Nigeria against the respondents /defendants claiming, a declaration that the Plaintiffs are the owners and are entitled to the possession, occupation and full user of all that piece or parcel of land, damages for trespass, and an injunction perpetually restraining the defendants, their agents, servants and/or other representatives from further interference with plaintiffs right, title, possession and interest in and over the said Ozugboko land. The learned trial Judge gave judgment in favor of the plaintiffs as per their claim. The defendants appealed to the Federal Court of Appeal. The Federal Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment of the High Court. The appellants further appealed to the Supreme Court.
HELD
The appeal was allowed. The judgment of the High Court was restored
ISSUES
1. The Federal Court of Appeal erred in law in permitting argument to be addressed to it that the land in dispute was communal land and did not belong exclusively to the plaintiffs who are of the Elekohia family. Alternatively, the Federal Court of Appeal erred in law in upholding the submission of learned counsel for the defendants of want of exclusive ownership by the plaintiffs and allowing the appeal on that ground.
2. The Federal Court of Appeal erred in law and on the facts in setting aside some of the findings of fact of the learned trial Judge and allowing the appeal on that ground when there was ample evidence in support of such findings of fact.
RATIONES DECIDENDI
PARTIES ARE BOUND BY THEIR PLEADINGS
“It is also trite law that parties are bound by their pleadings and any evidence which is at variance with the averments in the pleadings goes to no issue and should be disregarded by the court.” Per A. NNAMANI, JSC.
COURT OF APPEAL CANNOT SUBSTITUTE ITS OWN VIEWS FOR THE VIEWS OF THE TRIAL COURT.
“It is now settled law that if there has been a proper appraisal of evidence by a trial court, a court of appeal ought not to embark on a fresh appraisal of the same evidence in order merely to arrive at a different conclusion from that reached by the trial court.” Per A. NNAMANI, JSC.
EVIDENCE NOT PLEADED SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO BE GIVEN
“It is settled law that evidence in respect of matters not pleaded really go to no issue at the trial and the trial court should not allow such evidence to be given.” Per A. NNAMANI, JSC.
THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON THE PLAINTIFF IN A DECLARATION OF TITLE
“It has been settled law for many years now that in a suit for declaration of title the onus of proof lies on the plaintiff and he must succeed on the strength of his case and not on the weakness of the defendants case.” Per A. NNAMANI, JSC.
CASES CITED
Kodilinye v. Odu 2 WACA 336 at 337 – 338
Obisanya v. Nwoko &Anor. (1974) 6 S.C. 69.
Akunwata Nwagbogu v. Chief M. O. Ibeziako (1972) Vol. 2 Part 1 ECSLR 335 at 338
Akinola & Anor v. Oluwo & Ors (1962) 1 All NLR pt. 2 224, 227.
Chief Aboh Ogboda v. Daniel Adulagba (1971) 1 All NLR 68.
Emegokwue and Okadigbo (1973) 4 S.C. 113 at 117
George & Ors v. Dominion Flour Mills Ltd. (1963) 1 ANLR 71 at 77
African Continental Seaways Ltd. v. Nigerian Dredging Roads and General Works Ltd. (1977) 5 S.C. 235 at p. 248
National Investment Co. Ltd. v. Thompson Organisation (1969) NMLR 104.
STATUTES REFERRED TO
