OBA LAWAL IFABIYI V CHIEF SOLOMON ADENIYI & 2 ORS
June 26, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (2000) Legalpedia (CA) 26214
In the Court of Appeal
HOLDEN AT PORT HARCOURT
Wed May 3, 2000
Suit Number: CA/PH/229/96
CORAM
MICHAEL EYARUOMA AKPIROROH
IGNATIUS CHUKWUDI PATS-ACHOLONU, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT
PARTIES
PAUL NWOHANMUO IHEKORONYE
1. NWAIWU HART2. LEVI MICAH
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The Plaintiff/Appellant commenced this action by a writ of summons at the Magistrate’s court Isiala Hgwa North Local Government Area holden at Okpuala Ngwa and was later transferred to the High Court Isiala Ngwa, for hearing and determination. The Plaintiff claimed against the Defendants jointly and severally the sum of One thousand naira (N1,000.00), being special damages for Defendants’ destruction and damage to Plaintiff’s land called “Mgbara Apiti” land, which is situate and lying at Umueze Ihieorji Ngwa Ukwu in the Isiala Ngwa North Local Government Area of Abia State, within jurisdiction, Six thousand Naira N6,000.00, being general damages for Defendants’ unauthorised entry and trespass to the said “Mgbara Apiti” land without the leave or licence of the Plaintiff; an order of perpetual injunction restraining the Defendants by themselves, their sons, servants from further trespass into the said “Mgbara Apiti” land among other reliefs. The Plaintiff’s/Appellant’s case put briefly is that the land in dispute is one of the pieces of lands deforested by his fore father Eze who had two sons Ngwa and Njoku. When he died, Ngwa inherited the lands and when Ngwa died, Iheanacho inherited the lands because Njoku died before Ngwa. As the head of the family, Iheanacho pledged “Mgbara Apiti”, the land in dispute to one Isiguzo of Amapu and his father Ihekoronye later redeemed it when Iheanacho, the head of the family was still alive. His father died before Iheanacho. When Iheanacho died, he inherited the land in dispute. The Defendants/Respondents denied the Appellant’s claim to the land in dispute. It was their case that Eze, their forefather founded the land in dispute, Eze begat two sons Ngwa and Njoku who shared the lands, and his grandfather got the land in dispute including five other pieces of land while the Appellant’s lineage got Uzoahaba, Azulorhari and Alaocha lands. It was also its case that since the sharing of the land, nobody had come from Njoku’s lineage to claim land in Ngwa lineage. The Appellant came into possession of the land in dispute because his father Micah pledged it to Ahudiya Ihekoronye, the mother of the Appellant. He later redeemed it after the death of his father. At the end of the trial, the learned trial Judge delivered his judgment and dismissed all the reliefs sought in the statement of claim. Dissatisfied with the judgment, the Appellant has appealed against the decision to this court.
HELD
Appeal Dismissed
ISSUES
Whether or not the appellant has proved that he was in exclusive possession of the land.
RATIONES DECIDENDI
ISSUE FOR DETERMINATION – ATTRIBUTE OF AN ISSUE FOR DETERMINATION
“Issues formulated should be brief and concise and not in form of argument. Be that as it may, the length of the issues is not a legal ground for striking out the appeal.”
CLAIM FOR TRESPASS – FACTS THAT MUST BE PROVED IN A CLAIM FOR TRESPASS
“In a claim for trespass, the plaintiff has to establish his actual exclusive possession of the land or his right to possession and that trespasseed the defendant on it. See the case of Shittu v. Egbeyemi (1996) 6 NWLR (Pt.457) 650, (1996) 40 LRCN at 1299, Adelaja v. Fanoiki (1990)2 NWLR (Pt 131) 137.”
PROOF – ONUS OF PROOF IN A LAND DISPUTE
“It is for the plaintiff to prove his case and he must succeed on the strength of his case and not on the weakness of the defendant’s case except where the defendant’s case in itself supports that of the plaintiff’s case which is not the case here. See Akinola and Anor v. Oluwo and 2 Ors (1962) 1 SCNLR 352, (1962) 1 All NLR (Pt. II) page 224 at 227, Mogaji v. Cadbury (Nig) Ltd. (1985) 2 NWLR (Pt. 7) 393 at 395.”
FINDINGS OF A TRIAL COURT- INSTANCES WHERE AN APPELLATE COURT WILL INTERFERE WITH THE FINDING OF FACT BY A TRIAL COURT
“It is well settled that unless a finding is perverse and cannot be supported by evidence, a court of appeal will not interfere with it. See Akibu v. Opaleye (1974) 11 S. C. 189, Woluchem v. Gudi (1981) 5 S. C. 291 and Onwube v. Nduba (1972) 3 S. C. 106.”
CASES CITED
Not Available
STATUTES REFERRED TO
Evidence Act, 2011|Land Use Act, 1978|
