CORAM

EMMANUEL OLAYINKA AYOOLA, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

PARTIES

1. NNANTA ORIANWO2. RICHARD WOSU3. FRANKLIN AMADI 4. THOMAS ACHO5. BONIFACE ELEWA(For themselves and on behalf of RUMUORIANWO WOGOZO FAMILY) APPELLANTS

RESPONDENTS

AREA(S) OF LAW

SUMMARY OF FACTS

Both parties instituted action with respect to the land in dispute which was consolidated. The court of appeal set aside the decision of the trial judge awarding title to the appellants on the grounds that the court did not resolve the issue as to the name of defendants’ ancestor and awarded title to the respondents without making any findings of fact with respect to their claim

HELD

The court held that the issue was not vital in the resolution of the dispute between the parties and that the Court of Appeal was wrong in giving judgment in favour of the respondents.

ISSUES

1. Whether the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal were right in allowing the appeal on the ground that the trial Court had failed to make a finding of fact on the issue of the status of Amadi and Okene, when a finding of fact on that issue was actually made by the trial Court.2. Whether the failure by the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal to consider the vital issue of ‘on whom the land in dispute vested on the death of Wokerebe’ had not occasioned a great miscarriage of justice.3. Assuming that the issue as to the status of Amadi and Okene was not resolved by the trial Court, were the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal right in entering judgment for the Defendants/Respondents, having not by themselves resolved the issue in favour of the Defendants/Respondents?4. Were the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal right in entering judgment for the Defendants/Respondents on the ground of the non-pleading by the Plaintiffs/Appellants of the Ikwerre Native law and custom of burial rites of deceased persons when what were the said burial rites had never been an issue in the case.5.  Were the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal right in not considering the Plaintiffs/Appellants cross-appeal and in making an order striking out the cross-appeal?6. Were the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal right to have awarded damages to the Defendants/Respondents in trespass and in making an order of injunction against the Plaintiffs/Appellants??

RATIONES DECIDENDI

CROSS-ACTION – DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A CROSS-ACTION AND AN ACTION

Where there is an action and a cross-action and plaintiff in the main action fails; it does not necessarily follow that the cross-action succeeds unless findings are made in favour of the plaintiff in the cross-action entitling him to succeed. This is so because the cross-action is an independent action by itself and plaintiff therein can only succeed on the strength of his case and not on the weakness of the defence; – Ogundare J.S.C.

CASES CITED

Olatunji v. Adisa (1995) 2NWLR (Pt. 376) 167 Obasi Ibenye & Ors. v. Abram Agwu (1998) 11 NWLR (Pt. 574) 375

STATUTES REFERRED TO

NONE

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT