MICHEAL OGO IBEZIAKO VS AKUWATA NWAGBOGU & ANOR

CORAM

COKER JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

FATAYI-WILLIAMS JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

SOWEMIMO JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

PARTIES

MICHEAL OGO IBEZIAKO APPELLANTS

RESPONDENTS

AREA(S) OF LAW

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The proceedings herein originated in the Onitsha Native Court as Suit No. 649/55 in which the present respondents, as plaintiffs, had sued the present appellant as defendant for –

1. Declaration of title to the piece or parcel of land known as and called Iyiukwu situate in Onitsha Township and bounded on the North by Ogboza land occupied by Q.R.C., on the East by Ogboli land, on the West by Oguta Rd., and on the South by land of Otimili of Obikporo. Plan of land to be filed in Court. Value of land £400.

2. £150 damages for trespass to the said land.

3. Recovery of possession of the said land.

HELD

That there was clear evidence of possession given by and on behalf of the Plaintiffs and the appropriate claims are for damages for trespass and an injunction

ISSUES

Whether the learned trial Judge was right having failed to give due weight to the evidence of the defence depicting extensive acts of possession of the land.

RATIONES DECIDENDI

DIFFERENCE BETWEEM A CLAIM FOR TRESPASS AND A CLAIM FOR RECOVERY OF POSSESSION

It is wrong to join a claim for trespass with one for recovery of possession, for whilst the claim for trespass contemplates that the plaintiff is in possession, the claim for recovery of possession suggests that he is out of possession. – Per George B. Ayodola Coker JSC