CORAM
BRETT, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT
TAYLOR, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT
BAIRAMIAN, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT
PARTIES
ONWUMA OGUEZE AND OTHERS (on their own behalf and on behalf of the Umuezeana Okija communitY)
APPELLANTS
OKOLI OJIAKO AND OTHERS (on their own behalf and on behalf Of the Uhuokwe Okija Community)
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE–JUDGMENT—NULLITY OR VALIDITY OF JUDGMENT
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The plaintiffs/respondents sued the defendants/appellants over a disputed land claiming a declaration of title, damages for trespass and restraining them from further trespass at a Native Court, before evidence they settled and the terms of settlement was made the judgment of the Court. The Court then reopened the case and did not deliver a judgment thereafter.
HELD
I would dismiss the appeal with costs assessed at 25 guineas.
ISSUES
Whether the trial Judge was right in holding that there was a final judgment in that suit, and that the judgment is conclusive in favour of the respondents?
RATIONES DECIDENDI
THE VALIDITY OF A JUDGMENT
Where no question of nullity arises, once the judgment of any competent court is perfected it is valid until set aside by competent authority, and there can be no presumption against the validity of such a judgment. The judgment of the native court must be regarded as a subsisting one. Per BRETT F. J.
IN A CLAIM FOR DECLARATION OF TITLE, THE DISPUTED LAND MUST BE ASCERTAINED
‘Nevertheless, an action for the discretionary remedy of a declaration of title presents special features as regards the defence of judgment recovered, and I would uphold the grant of a declaration in this case on the ground that it was made by reference to a plan, which the declaration of the native court was not, and thus adds something to the original declaration.’ Per BRETT F.J.
CASES CITED
Not Available
STATUTES REFERRED TO
The Native Courts Ordinance