OJEIFO EIGBEJALE VS EBHOMIENLEN OKE & ORS - Legalpedia | The Complete Lawyer - Research | Productivity | Health

OJEIFO EIGBEJALE VS EBHOMIENLEN OKE & ORS

ONWE ONU & ORS VS OKE AGU & ORS
July 4, 2025
OJO ADEBAYO VS MRS. F. IGHODALO
July 4, 2025
ONWE ONU & ORS VS OKE AGU & ORS
July 4, 2025
OJO ADEBAYO VS MRS. F. IGHODALO
July 4, 2025
Show all

OJEIFO EIGBEJALE VS EBHOMIENLEN OKE & ORS

Legalpedia Citation: (1996) Legalpedia (SC) 13111

In the Supreme Court of Nigeria

HOLDEN AT ABUJA

Mon May 13, 1996

Suit Number: SC. 46/1991

CORAM


A.B. WALI

OLAJIDE OLATAWURA., JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

M.L. UWAIS, CHIEF JUSTICE, NIGERIA

A.I. IGUH


PARTIES


OJEIFO EIGBEJALE APPELLANTS


EBHOMIENLEN OKEIYERE OKEOKOJIE UWADIALECHIEF AKWETE EHIBOREDOYUGBO DAMENAKHIMIEMONA OKOUGBOUWAHOLEN OKOH (For themselves and on behalf of the people of Ujabhole) RESPONDENTS


AREA(S) OF LAW



SUMMARY OF FACTS

The plaintiff’s case is that it was one Oghaloa, the great grand father of the plaintiff that first deforested and became the founder of Udomi village in Uwessan. By devolution in unbroken chain from father to first son as testified to by the plaintiff, the land of Udomi village, including the land in dispute, devolved on the plaintiff by inheritance under Ishan customary law which the defendants, claimed to be part of their Ujabhole village land.


HELD


The Court upheld decision of the trial court granting the appellant’s claims in respect of statutory right of occupancy to the piece or parcel of land, damages for trespass and perpetual injunction was restored. The appellant is entitled to the costs of this appeal in the sum of N1000.00 in this court and N700.00 in the court below.


ISSUES


“(1) Were the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal right to reverse the finding of the learned trial Judge that the moat marked the boundary between plaintiff’s and defendants’ land? (2) Were the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal right in putting on the plaintiff the burden of proving not only the disputed boundary of the land but all the boundaries of the entire land of plaintiff including areas not in dispute? (3) Were the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal right in their views that in this case, defendant’s acts of possession defeated the appellant’s claim to title? (4) Had the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal justifiable legal basis for reversing the finding of fact made by the learned trial Judge in thus case on the traditional evidence adduced before him?


RATIONES DECIDENDI


CASES CITED


Shitta-Bey v. Federal Public Service Commission (1981) 1 SC 40,|Saude v. Abdullahi (1989) 7 SC NJ 216 at 229:(1989)4 NWLR (Pt. I t6) 387;|Chief Ebba v. Chief Ogodo and Another (1984) 4 SC 84 at 112:|Florence Olusanya v. Olufemi Olasanya (1983) 3 SC 41 at 56-57: (1983) I SCNLR 134


STATUTES REFERRED TO


None.|


CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT

Comments are closed.