OGUNDELE V FASU
June 27, 2025MADAM EUNICE ENABULELE VS MADAM OMOYEVBESE AGBONLAHOR
June 27, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (1999) Legalpedia (SC) 31171
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Fri Sep 24, 1999
Suit Number: SC.18/93
CORAM
SALIHU MODIBBO ALFA BELGORE, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
EMMANUEL OBIOMA OGWUEGBU JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
ANTHONY IKECHUKWU IGUH JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
ALOYSIUS I. KATSINA-ALU
USTICE, SUPREME COURT
EMMANUEL OLAYINKA AYOOLA, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
PARTIES
1. OYIBO MADUBUONWU 2. NGBECHI CHIGBOGU3. NWEKE ENWEANI4. PAUL OBODOEZE5. EDOCHIE CHIAMOGU 6. ANANTI UDEMGBA7. IKEGBUNAM OKAGBUE 8. OGUGUA EKWUYE(For themselves and on behalf of all other eldersand members of Ero-Onyia Ore-Nja quarter of Omor UzoUwani Local Government Area) APPELLANTS
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The respondents claimed declaration of title to land, damage for trespass and a perpetual injunction against the appellants at the trial court
HELD
The Court held that the trial court, meticulously evaluated the evidence of these witnesses and other pieces of evidence including Exhibit ‘A’ and B’ and came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs are the owners of the land in dispute verged red in both plans. The Court of Appeal also after a thorough review confirmed the conclusions of the trial court. This court will not disturb concurrent findings of fact by the two courts below in favour of the plaintiffs unless those findings are shown to be perverse, no supported by the evidence and they occasion a miscarriage of justice and accordingly dismissed the appeal.
ISSUES
FRICAN CONTINENTAL BANK LTD. CALABER VS JOSEPH AGBANYM 1960 FSC 267/1959 [1960] NSCC 12(i) Whether the court below gave due weight or consideration to the presumption (which arose on the evidence) that the defendants are the true owners of the land in dispute.(ii) Was the Court of Appeal correct in affirming the finding of the High Court on the plaintiffs’ traditional evidence.(iii) Whether the court below was correct in describing the dispute between the parties to this action as being “more or less in the nature of a boundary dispute between two villages.”(iv) Whether the court below was correct in regarding the question “whether or not the land in dispute fell within the Aturia village of the plaintiffs” as the basis of the rival contentions of the parties to this action.(v) Whether there was a proper evaluation of the evidence of p.w.5 and p.w.2 by the court below.(vi) Whether the plaintiffs succeeded in proving the Northern Boundary of the land in dispute.
RATIONES DECIDENDI
CASES CITED
Kodilinye v. Odu (1932) 2 WACA. 336; Piaro v. Tenalo (1976) 12 S.C. 31Joseph Akinola & Anor, v. Olunso & Ors. [1962] 1 All NLR. 224 at 225Uchendu v. Ogboni (1999) 5 NWLR. (pt. 693) 337.Ogbechie v. Onochie [1988] 1 NWLR. (pt, 70) 370;Iriri v. Erhurhobara (1991) 2 NWL,R. (pt. 173) 252 at 263.Odife v. Aniemeka [1992] 7 N.W.L.R. (pt. 251) 25 at 40-41.Igwego v. Ezeugo [1992] 4 NWLR. (pt. 249) 561; Nwadike v. Ibekwe [1987] 4 NWLR. (pt. 67) 718
STATUTES REFERRED TO
None
