EDIO EKRETSU & ANOR VS MILLAR OYOBEBERE & ORS - Legalpedia | The Complete Lawyer - Research | Productivity | Health

EDIO EKRETSU & ANOR VS MILLAR OYOBEBERE & ORS

AFRICAN CONTINENTAL BANK LTD V CHIEF JAMES O. EDEWOR & ORS
July 10, 2025
GANIYU GBADAMOSI VS THE STATE
July 10, 2025
AFRICAN CONTINENTAL BANK LTD V CHIEF JAMES O. EDEWOR & ORS
July 10, 2025
GANIYU GBADAMOSI VS THE STATE
July 10, 2025
Show all

EDIO EKRETSU & ANOR VS MILLAR OYOBEBERE & ORS

Legalpedia Citation: (1992-12) Legalpedia 05059 (SC)

In the Supreme Court of Nigeria

LAGOS

Fri Dec 18, 1992

Suit Number: SC.24/1991

CORAM


KAWU, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

WALI JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

KUTIGI JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

OGWUEGBU JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

MOHAMMED JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT


PARTIES


EDIO EKRETSU

EVRU ONOROVWIE (for themselves and on behalf of UNUARO FAMILY of Uwheru)

APPELLANTS 


MILLAR OYOBEBERE

CHIEF ONIVWEGHA AKOKINI

SIMON APHIRHEVWE

JOHN MARK EKEH

OMOKOSI AGOGOJOSE

OVBIGHOVBIRORO ITUGHU (for themselves and on behalf of OHORO Community of Uwheru)

RESPONDENTS 


AREA(S) OF LAW


 

DECLARATION OF TITLE TO LAND – EVIDENCE- TRESPASS – POSSESSION

 

 


SUMMARY OF FACTS

Both parties claimed defective title to the land in dispute, the appellant however established possession of the land before the respondents came into the land

 

 


HELD


The court held that the appellants were entitled to damages in trespass as claimed by them.

 

 


ISSUES


1. Whether the Court of Appeal was right in holding that the learned trial Judge had found that the acts of ownership and possession did not extend over sufficient length of time to warrant the inference of exclusive ownership and possession.

 

2. Whether the Court of Appeal was right in holding that the learned trial Judge had found that both parties in this case were in possession of the land in dispute.

 

3. Whether the Court of Appeal was right in holding that the claim or trespass in this case is dependent on the claim for declaration of title.

 

4. Whether the Court of Appeal was right in expunging from the record and rejecting the evidence led by the appellants concerning their planting of crops, such as banana and plantain, on the land in dispute.

 

5. Whether the Court of Appeal was justified in disturbing the specific findings of fact made in favour of the appellants as to their possession of the land in dispute.”

 

 


RATIONES DECIDENDI


TRESPASS TO LAND


‘It is trite law that trespass to land is actionable at the suit of the person in possession of the land.’ Per Ogwuegbu J.S.C

 

 

 


FAILURE OF A CLAIM FOR DECLARATION OF TITLE TO LAND


 

‘The failure of the claim for declaration of title to land does not necessarily defeat a claim for damages for trespass.’ Per Ogwuegbu J.S.C

 

 


CASES CITED


 

Akano v. Okunade (1978) 3 SC. 129 at 137;

Oluwa v. Eniola (1976) NML 339;

Kponulgo v. Kodadja 2 WA.C.A. 24

Amakor v. Obiefuna  (1974)3 S.C 67 at 78

 

 


STATUTES REFERRED TO


None

 

 


CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT 

Comments are closed.