CORAM
S.M.A. BELGORE, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT
A.I. IGUH, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT
U.A. KALGO, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT
S.O. UWAIFO, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT
E.O. AYOOLA, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT
PARTIES
1. EBENEZER NWOKORO
2. NZEPHENIAH OSUJI
3. EUGENE UNANKA
4. VINCENT ORII
5. OBED EJEKU
APPELLANTS
PETER NNODI
(For themselves and as representing Umumgbeke and Umuezem Villages of Ugirike Ikeduru, Owerri)
TITUS ONUMA
PATRICK OPARA
(For themselves and on behalf of Ndiorji Village, Ugirike, Ikeduru Owerri)
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
DISPUTE ON LAND
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The plaintiffs/respondents were the people of Ndiorji village, one of the eight villages of Ugirike Ikeduru in Owerri, The defendants/appellants were of Umuezem and Umumgbeke, two of the said eight villages. The respondents lay claim to a parcel of land known as ORIE OFOR, now in dispute, which they alleged was part or their larger parcel of land called Ala Ndiorji. They brought this suit against the appellants for a declaration of title to the said Orie Ofor, damages for trespass, and perpetual injunction. The trial judge gave judgment for the respondents in respect of the three reliefs but limited the extent and effect of the first and third reliefs. He made further orders which were not asked for and were not really consequential or incidental to the reliefs claimed. Both parties appealed to the Court or Appeal. The Court of Appeal dismissed the defendants’ appeal and allowed the plaintiffs’ appeal. They further appealed to the Supreme Court.
HELD
The appeal was dismissed for lacking in merit.
ISSUES
1. That there was conflict between the evidence of p.w .1, p.w.2 and p.w.3 on the issue of cultivation by the parties of oil palm trees on the land in dispute and that the court below failed to note this.
2. The court below erred in law and came to wrong conclusion on the facts in failing to observe that the plaintiffs did not prove the acts of trespass as pleaded in their amended statement of claim.
3. The court below erred in law in holding that the defendants did not deny paragraph 13 of the amended statement of claim and that section 45 of the Evidence Act was correctly applied.
RATIONES DECIDENDI
CONTRADICTIONS BY WITNESSES SHOULD NOT BE MATERIAL
“The contradictions by witnesses should not be material to the extent that they cast serious doubts on the case presented as a whole by that party or as to the reliability of such witnesses.” Per S.O. UWAIFO, JSC.
DUTY OF AN APPELLATE COURT
“Appellate courts do not try the case of the parties. That is effectively done at the court of first instance. The normal duty of an appellate court is to see whether issues presented to the trial court were properly resolved.” Per S.O. UWAIFO, JSC.
EXCEPTIONS TO WHERE SUPREME COURT MAY INTERFERE WITH FINDINGS OF FACT BY THE LOWER COURTS
“This court will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact by the two lower courts unless there is a special circumstance shown to impel it to do so. Such special circumstance arises from a clear case that the findings of fact are perverse, or there is an error in procedure or substantive law which has occasioned a miscarriage of justice.” Per S.O. UWAIFO, JSC.
A GENERAL TRAVERSE IS NOT AN EFFECTIVE DENIAL OF MATERIAL ALLEGATIONS
“A general traverse or denial usually given in one of the paragraphs of a statement of defense, either at the beginning or the end of that statement, is not an effective denial of essential or material allegations.” Per S.O. UWAIFO, JSC.
CASES CITED
Enahoro v. The Queen (1965) NMLR 265
Chinwendu v. Mbamali (1980) 3-4 S.C. 31 at 75
Enang v. Adu (1981) 11 – 12 S.CC 25 at 42
Mogaji v. Cadbury (Nig.) Ltd. v. (1985) 16 NSCC 959 at 995
Okonkwo v. Kpajie (1992) 2 NWLR (Pt.226) 633 at 658
Atowebi v. Governor, Oyo State (1994) 5 NWLR (Pt.344) 290 at 300
J. A. Obanor & Co.. Ltd. v. Co. Ltd. v. Co-op Bank Ltd. (1995) 4 NWLR (Pt.388) 128 at 138
Ogoyi v. Unagba (1995) 9 NWLR (Pt.419) 283 at 294
Balogun v. United Bank for Africa Ltd. (1992) 6 NWLR (Pt.247) 326 at 349
STATUTES REFERRED TO
None.