Matthew Onam & Anor V. Andrew Nnamchi & Anor (2016)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

TOM SHAIBU YAKUBU, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

This appeal is sequel to the judgment of the Customary Court of Appeal, Enugu State delivered on 24th April, 2012 wherein the judgment of the trial Customary Court Amechi Uwani, Enugu State, was affirmed.

The appellants as plaintiffs sued the respondents at the Customary Court Amechi Uwani, Enugu State, claiming to be the exclusive owners of a certain land situate at Amechi Awkunanaw. The land, according to them, is referred to as part or side “A” being what they claimed to have inherited from Ogbu Nwa Onam as their (Appellants) share of the land once owned by Onam Nnamani, the common ancestor of the parties to this case.

The Appellants contention of exclusive ownership of the land (Part “A”) is predicated on an alleged sharing of the land by their common ancestor, Onam Nnamani in his life time.

It is a common ground that the alleged land was a gift to Onam Nnamani by the Umuanionu Umunnaji Ngene family of Amechi Awkunanaw.

?The respondents filed a counter – claim in which they denied the alleged exclusive ownership of the so called part “A” by the Appellants,

1

and instead contended that some portion of the bush was shared a few years ago by the appellants and respondents, which exercise they reported to their family meetings; but the dispute was unresolved by the latter. The respondents’ prayer was for the trial Court’s declaration that the said recent sharing is valid and binding on both parties.

The 1st plaintiff testified as PW1 and called 5 (five) other witnesses PW2 – PW6. The 1st defendant testified as DW1 and called 5 (five) other witnesses who testified as DW2 – DW6.

The trial Court visited the locus in quo, and thereafter in their judgment, reviewed the evidence led on both sides, made their findings and inferences and held that there was no satisfactory proof of the alleged ancient sharing by Onam Nnamani in his lifetime, of the said land, into sides A and B, between his two sons, and proceeded to make an order that the bush side of the lands, referred to as parts A and B, be shared between the appellants and the respondents with the aid of a qualified surveyor.

?

The appellants appealed to the Customary Court of Appeal Enugu, questioning the propriety of the order of the Customary Court.

2

The Customary Court of Appeal, after due consideration of the issues argued by the parties, handed down a judgment affirming the order of the trial Court, and thereby dismissed the appeal in its entirety. The appellants have further appealed to this Court against the dismissal of their appeal.