CORAM

---

JOHN INYANG OKORO    JUSTICE,  SUPREME COURT

AMIRU SANUSI    JUSTICE,  SUPREME COURT

JOHN INYANG OKORO    JUSTICE,  SUPREME COURT

AMIRU SANUSI    JUSTICE,  SUPREME COURT

KUMAI BAYANG AKA’AHS     JUSTICE SUPREME COURT

SULEIMAN GALADIMA    JUSTICE,  SUPREME COURT

JOHN INYANG OKORO    JUSTICE,  SUPREME COURT

AMIRU SANUSI    JUSTICE,  SUPREME COURT

---

PARTIES

---

ISAAC JITTE APPELLANTS

---

DICKSON OKPULOR

RESPONDENTS 

---

AREA(S) OF LAW

---

---

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Plaintiff now Respondent filed an action at the Customary Court Ubehe Abia State, wherein the Plaintiff/Respondent sought for a declaration that he is entitled to the Customary Right of Occupancy over the piece or parcel of land known as and called Agbaraukwu land situate at Umuelechi Obuzor Asa, Ukwa Local Government Area within the jurisdiction of this honourable Court, One Thousand Naira damages for trespass and Perpetual injunction restraining the Defendant/Appellant, their children, servants, agents, and privies from further entry into the said land. After a careful evaluation of evidence of witnesses for both parties, the trial Customary Court entered judgment in favour of the Plaintiff/Respondent.  Dissatisfied with the judgment of the court, the Defendant/Appellant appealed to the Customary Court of Appeal Ukwa. At the trial, the issues that were raised bothered around the lack of locus Standi of the Defendant /Appellant and the incompetence of the suit as a fundamental defect. The Customary Court of Appeal allowed the appeal with One Thousand Naira Only (N1, 000.00 K) in favour of the Defendant/Appellant. The Plaintiff/Respondent dissatisfied with the judgment of the Customary Court of Appeal, appealed to the Court of Appeal Port Harcourt Division where the Court set aside the judgment of the Customary Court of Appeal and affirmed the decision of the customary court. Still not satisfied with the judgment the Plaintiff/Respondent has appealed to this Court.

---

HELD

---

Appeal Dismissed

---

ISSUES

---

1. Whether the Respondent had proved his locus standi and entitlement to the land in accordance with established principles of law to be entitled to Judgment?

2. Whether the Court below was not in grave error when it held that the main contention between the parties was the boundary of the land and consequently held that a case of trespass had been established by the Respondent and on the other hand awarded the Right of Occupancy over Agbaraukwu land to Umuolu family?

 

---

RATIONES DECIDENDI

---

FAMILY LAND – A FAMILY MEMBER CAN HIMSELF ALONE OR WITH OTHER FAMILY MEMBERS SUE IN DEFENCE OF FAMILY LAND

---

“It is equally trite, that a family member can himself alone or with other family members sue in defence of the family land in his possession. See Sapo v Sumonu (2010) All FWLR (Pt.531) 14091 142; Agbagefele v Layinka & Ors (1993) 3 SCNJ 139; Nwabueze v Idris & Anor (1993) 2 SCNJ 139.” PER A. SANUSI J.S.C<foo< p=””></foo<>

---

LOCUS STANDI – MEANING OF LOCUS STANDI

---

“It is now well settled that locus standi is the legal capacity to institute proceedings in a court of law. See Thomas & Ors. V. Olufosoye (1986) 1 NWLR (Pt.18) 669, Odeneye V. Efunuga (1990) 11- 12 SC 122. For a person to have locus standi to sue, all he needs to do is to show that he has sufficient interest in the subject matter of the action and that his civil rights and obligations have been or are in danger of being infringed.” PER J. I. OKORO, J.S.C<foo< p=””></foo<>

---

PROCEDURAL IRREGULARITIES -EXTENT OF AN APPELLATE COURTS’ POWER TO CORRECT PROCEDURAL IRREGULARITIES

---

“It is trite to say therefore that the appellate court stands in a position to correct certain procedural irregularities manifesting rather than basing its evaluation of facts on form against the warning of the law establishing Customary Court in Abia State, In otherwords, the law is clearly stated that a mistake in form shall never vitiate any judgment by the trial court: – thus, Section 21 of the Customary Court Edict No. 7 of 1984 has this to say:-
“No proceedings in Customary Court and no summons warrant process, order or decree issued or made thereby shall be varied or declared void upon appeal solely by reason of any defect in procedure or want of form but every court or authority exercising powers of appeal under this edict shall decide all matters according to substantial justice without undue regard to technicalities,” PER C.B. OGUNBIYI, J.S.C<foo< p=””></foo<>

---

COMMENCEMENT OF ACTION IN CUSTOMARY COURT – DETERMINATION OF A PARTY’S CAPACITY TO INITIATE OR DEFEND AN ACTION IN CUSTOMARY COURT

---

“It is the law that in ascertaining in what capacity a party initiates or defends an action in the Customary Court, the whole proceedings must be carefully looked into and considered with greater latitude and broad or wide interpretation being placed in the proceedings and the judgment of that court.” See Ajuwon V. Aina (1990) 2 NWLR (Pt.132) 271; Alagujeun & Ors V. Sobo Osho Of Yeru & Ors (1972) 5 SC 9.” PER S. GALADIMA J.S.C<foo< p=””></foo<>

---

CUSTOMARY COURT PROCEEDINGS – APPROACH OF THE APPELLATE COURTS TO CUSTOMARY COURT PROCEEDINGS

---

“It is imperative to reiterate the fact that appellate courts have always adopted a liberal approach to customary court proceedings. Attention is focused on substance rather than form. The aim is to do justice and reach a decision that is in accord with common sense and reason, devoid of legal technicalities. See: Odofin v. Oni (2001) 3 NWLR (Pt.701) 488 @ 510 A – B; (2001) 1 SCNJ 130. What the court is concerned with is that the proceedings were conducted fairly and in accordance with the rules of that court. It was held in: Nthah v. Bennieh (1931) AC 72; 2 WACA 1 @ 3 that:
“decisions of the native tribunal on such matters which are peculiarly within their knowledge, arrived at after a fair hearing on relevant evidence, should not be disturbed without very clear proof that they are wrong.” PER K.M.O.KEKERE-EKUN,J.S.C<foo< p=””></foo<>

---

APPEAL- DUTY OF APPELLATE COURTS IN DETERMINING APPEALS FROM AREA OR CUSTOMARY COURTS

---

“It is trite that appellate courts should not be rigid, strict or dogmatic especially in determining appeals from Area/Native or Customary Courts.” PER A. SANUSI J.S.C<foo< p=””></foo<>

---

FACTS – ADMITTED FACTS ARE NO LONGER ISSUES BETWEEN THE PARTIES

---

“The law is trite and well settled that facts admitted are no longer issues between the parties”. PER C.B. OGUNBIYI, J.S.C<foo< p=””></foo<>

---

LOCUS STANDI – DETERMINATION OF LOCUS STANDI

---

“It is the statement of claim that will show whether the plaintiff has locus standi to sue or not. However, where by his evidence it is clear that the plaintiff is a busybody or an interloper, the court is entitled to hold that he lacks the locus standi to sue and the matter struck out. In other words, if he does not show sufficient interest in the matter, he has no locus to sue. See Owodumi V. Registered Trustees of Celestial Church of Christ (2000) 6 SC (Pt.3) p. 60, Ojukwu v. Ojukwu & Anor.(2008) 12 SC (Pt.III) page 1 at 17”. PER J. I. OKORO, J.S.C<foo< p=””></foo<>

---

CASES CITED

---

---

STATUTES REFERRED TO

---

Court of Appeal Rules 2002Customary Court Edict No. 7 of 1984Customary Rules of Imo State, 1989

---

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT

---