MR. HENRY ENUDI & ANOR v. MR. CHUKWUNWEIKE OSUMILI

CORAM

PARTIES

1. MR. HENRY ENUDI

2. MR. SUNDAY O. UKWADE

APPELLANTS 

MR. CHUKWUNWEIKE OSUMILI RESPONDENTS

AREA(S) OF LAW

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Respondent who was the Plaintiff at the High Court of Delta State instituted an action against the 2nd Defendant/Appellant who was also the Counter Claimant for declaration of Title to the piece of land known as Okwudi or Umuegusu. The 2nd Defendant/Appellant contended that the land in dispute was purchased by him in 2004 from the family members of the Plaintiff/Respondent. Upon purchase of same, the 2ndDefendant/Appellant did survey of the property and planted survey beacons thereon. The Plaintiff/Respondent who was not around when the property was sold to the 2nd Defendant/Appellant uprooted the beacons on the property upon his return. The 2nd Defendant caused the Plaintiff to be arrested and detained by the police but he was subsequently released on bail hence an action for declaratory reliefs, N5,000,000.00 (Five Million Naira) being damages against the Defendants for their wanton acts of continuing trespass on the said Plaintiff’s land and Perpetual injunction restraining the Defendants, their agents, servants, privies, heirs from continuing acts of trespass or disturbing the Plaintiff’s exercise of rights over his said land. The Appellant also counter-claimed and sought for a declaration that the 2nd Defendant is entitled to the statutory right of occupancy over the land in dispute, N10, 000,000.00 (Ten Million Naira) being damages for trespass on the said land and Perpetual injunction restraining the Plaintiff, his agents, servants, and privies from further trespassing on/over all that piece or parcel of land in dispute. Issues were joined and the court proceeded to hear the case. In a considered judgment the trial court dismissed both the Plaintiff’s  claims and the Defendant’s counter claim. Dissatisfied with the part of the decision dealing with the counterclaim the Appellant has filed an appeal before this court against the said decision.

HELD

Appeal Allowed in part

ISSUES

1. Whether from the pleadings and the totality of the evidence led by the parties, the identity of the land claimed by the 2nd appellant is known to the parties, clear and or ascertainable?

2. Whether the learned trial Judge was right when after dismissing the respondent’s claim in its entirety proceeded to grant to the respondent possessory rights over the land in dispute?

3. Whether the learned trial Judge was right having regard to the pleadings and the totality of the evidence led in the case to have dismissed the counter claim of the 2nd appellant?

RATIONES DECIDENDI

CASES CITED

STATUTES REFERRED TO

None

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT