Omeazu Chukwura v. A. J. Ofochebe (1972)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

B. A. COKER, J.S.C.

The present appellant, Omeazu Chukwura, was the defendant before the High Court, Onitsha (East-Central State) in an action instituted against him “for himself and on behalf of the people of Akpom Umudioka” by A. L. Ofochebe, who is the present respondent, and had sued “for himself and on behalf of the people of Ifite Ogbunike.” That was Suit No. 0/22/63 and the writ therein was endorsed for the following claims:

“(1) Declaration of title of ownership to the piece of land called and known as AGU-UGWUOBA situate at Ifite Ogbunike and more particularly shown and delineated on a plan to be filed in court.

(2) Forfeiture of the defendant’s possession of any portion of the said land.

(3) 100pounds damages for trespass.

(4) Injunction to restrain the defendant, his servants and agents from going upon or making use of the land.”

Soon after the institution of this action, Omeazu Chukwura and two others “for themselves and on behalf of the people of Akpon Umudioka” instituted another action in the same court against Ajofobi Ofochebe and another person “for and on behalf of Ifite Ogbunike.” That was Suit No. 0/32/63 and that writ was endorsed as follows, in part:

“The plaintiffs’ claim against the defendants is for:

(a) Declaration of title to the parcel of land known as “AGE MMILI NKISSA” situate at Akpom Umudioka in Onitsha Division and more particularly delineated on a plan to be filed in this case.

(b) 200pounds damages against the defendants jointly and severally for trespass on the said parcel of land.

(c) Injunction to restrain the defendants, their heirs and successors, servants from further doing anything thereon.”

Thus, the two actions were between the people of Ifite Ogbunike on the one hand and the people of Akpom Umudioka on the other hand.

Pleadings were separately ordered and filed in the two cases but both were later consolidated for hearing. The pleadings of the parties and the plans filed and produced in evidence by them too easily revealed that the parties were disputing the same piece of land and that the land, called by and known to the plaintiff’s people of lfite Ogbunike as Agu Ugwuoba, is the same land as is called by and known to the defendants’ people of Akpom Umudioka as Age Mmili Nkissa. The consolidated cases were heard by Kaine J. (High Court, Onitsha) and in the course of a reserved judgment, he gave in favour of the plaintiffs, observing as follows:

“I am therefore of opinion that the plaintiffs have proved their case and are entitled to judgment.