CORAM

---

AUGUSTINE NNAMANI, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT

---

PARTIES

---

1. SUNDAY UFOMBA2. JOHNSON UZOGU (FOR THEMSELVES AND ON BEHALF OF ICHI FAMILY UMUODE VILLAGE OBIOMA NGWA L.G.A.) APPELLANT(S) / PLAINTIFF(S)

---

DEFENDANT(S) /RESPONDENT(S)

---

AREA(S) OF LAW

---

---

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The plaintiff claimed trespass and injunction against the defendants over a land which he averred was given to them by the defendants’ ancestors as compensation for the loss of the plaintiff’s ancestor’s two slaves who died while working on the land. The defendants denied such grant.

---

HELD

---

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the plaintiffs did not prove the Customary grant alleged by them and since the defendants claimed ownership and plaintiffs have not proved a better title, their claim for trespass must fail.

---

ISSUES

---

1. Whether the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal adverted their minds to the main issue in the case of the appellants going by their claim, pleadings and the evidence of the parties. 2. Whether the facts arrived at by the native arbitration and the trial high Court do not constitute concurrent findings of fact which should not be unduly discharged by an appellate Court, the Court of Appeal.

---

RATIONES DECIDENDI

---

CUSTOMARY ARBITRATION AWARD NOT A FINDING OF COURT OF LAW

---

The general rule is that an appellate court will not disturb the concurrent findings of the two courts below unless they are found to be perverse. As the Eze Arbitration proceedings are not those of a court of Law, its findings will not come for consideration in the application of this rule. At best, the Eze Arbitration Award could only be useful as estoppel against the Defendants if it satisfied all the requirements of a valid native arbitration award, which does not appear to be the case here. Per M.E Ogundare JSC

---

ACTION FOR TRESPASS

---

Trespass is a violation of possessory right and does not involve title to land. Thus, a person who has been in exclusive possession of land but was wrongly dispossessed is entitled to recover possession even if the true title is shown to belong to a third party. As trespass does not involve title, exclusive possession by a trespasser is good against the whole word except the person who can show a better title….Where, however, in an action for trespass the issue of title is raised, to succeed, a plaintiff must be able to show a better title to be in possession of the land in dispute, than the defendant. Per M.E Ogundare JSC

---

NATURE OF A CUSTOMARY PLEDGE

---

One invariable rule of customary pledge that can be gathered from the reported cases is that the pledgee always goes into possession and has the right to put the land to some productive use. To that extent, such use is a kind of interest due on the amount of the loan. The very nature of a customary pledge, which is perpetually redeemable, is that the pledgee has only a temporary occupation licence and that he must yield up the pledged land as far as possible in the form he took it on originally. This means that he must put it to only ordinary use so that its return to the pledgor should be unencumbered in any way… customary pledges of land are perpetually redeemable. Per M.E Ogundare JSC quoting Elias CJN in Okoiko V Esedalue

---

CASES CITED

---

1.    Omoni V. Biriyah (1976) 6 SC 492.    Aromire V. Awoyemi (1972) 2 SC 13.    Ngene V. Igbo (2002) 4 NWLR 1314.    Akano V. Okunade (1978) 3SC 129 5.    Nwozu V. Otunola (1974) 4 SC 21 6.    Amakor V. Obiefuna (1974) 3 SC 67, 75-76 7.    Ogunde V. Ojomu (1972) 4SC. 195 8.    Adani V. Igwe (1957) 2FSC 879.    Ajaka Izenkwe & Ors. V. Nnadozie, 14 WACA 36110.    Okoiko & Anor V. Esedalue & Anor (1974) 9 NSCC 153 at pp. 161 – 162

---

STATUTES REFERRED TO

---

NONE

---

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT