CORAM

---

A. NNAMANI, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT

A.B. WALL, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT

I.L. KUTIGI, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT

U. MOHAMMED, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT

S.U. ONU, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT

A.I. IGUH, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT

---

PARTIES

---

1. FABIAN ONYEJEKWE

2. OBIECHINA ONYEJEKWE

3. HERBERT ONYEJEKWE  (For themselves and on behalf of Orowa family of Ogbeoza Village, Onitsha excluding the plaintiffs)

APPELLANTS 

---

1. OBIORA ONYEJEKWE

2. DR. UCHENNA ONYEJEKWE

3. IFEANYI ONYEJEKWE

4. MADAM GRACE ONYEJEKWE

 

RESPONDENTS 

---

AREA(S) OF LAW

---

LAW OF EQUITY – PRINCIPLE OF EQUITY – EQUALITY IS EQUITY

 

 

---

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Respondents who were the Plaintiffs at the trial Court instituted this action and claimed against the Appellants for equitable distribution or sharing of 18 plots of family land known as “Owelebo” which plots of land were allocated to Orowa family by the Umueze Aroli Community.The learned trial judge considered the pleadings and evidence adduced and resolved in his judgment that the plaintiffs/ respondents have failed to prove that the sharing of the plots must be made through ‘Usokwu” system. Secondly, the plaintiffs/respondents have failed to prove that the method used in sharing of the plots was inequitable. He therefore dismissed the claim.

 

 

---

HELD

---

The Court set aside the decision of Court of Appeal on the ground that it is not supported by pleadings and evidence and upheld the decision of the trial High Court as equitable method adopted in sharing the 18 plots i.e. through spiritual headship, marital status and age. The respondents had failed to find fault in the system during trial.

 

 

---

ISSUES

---

Whether the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal awarded the plaintiffs/respondents more than what they sought?

 

 

---

RATIONES DECIDENDI

---

BURDEN OF PROOF

---

It is trite that the burden of proving particular fact is on the party who seeks to rely on it and who will fail where such evidence is not adduced. -per Uthman Mohammed JSC

 

 

---

APPELLATE COURT NOT TO EMBARK ON A FRESH APPRAISAL OF EVIDENCE

---

It is not the business of the Court of Appeal to substitute its own view for the views of the trial court. If there has been 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 to arrive at a different conclusion from that reached by the trial court. -per Uthman Mohammed JSC

 

 

---

WHERE PLEADINGS ARE JOINED

---

Where pleadings have been joined by the parties in a case the judgment of the court must be based both on the facts and the law on issues joined by the parties on their pleadings. A court should not embark on dealing with issues not raised in the pleadings nor should it give judgment on issues on which either counsel had not been called upon to address the court. -per Uthman Mohammed JSC

 

 

---

CASES CITED

---

African Continental Seaways Ltd v Nigeria Dredging Roads and General Works Ltd (1977) 5 SC. 235 at 248

Akinloye & Anor v Eyiyola & Ors. (1968) NMLR 29

Akinloye & Anor v Eyiyola & Ors. (1968) NMLR 92 at 93

Aseimo & Ors .v Amos & Ors. (1975) NSCC 43

Awoyale v Ogunbiyi (1986) 2 NWLR (Part 24) 626 at 627

Ezomo v Attorney-General Bendel State (1986) 4 NWLR (Part 36) 448 at 462

 

 

---

STATUTES REFERRED TO

---

NONE

 

 

---

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT