Chief Bruno Etim & Ors V. Chief Okon Udo Ekpe & Anor (1983)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

ANIAGOLU, J.S.C. 

On 4th January 1983 we dismissed, with N300.00 costs to the respondents, the appeal to this Court filed by the plaintiffs/appellants – the people of Ifiayong, Uyo – against the judgment of the Federal Court of Appeal which affirmed the judgment of the High Court of the Uyo Judicial Division of the Cross River State – a High Court judgment which dismissed their claim for:

i. a declaration of title of ownership to a parcel of land bearing two names:

Akpatre Ntem Usung and Eyie Ayaiya, situate at Ifiayong, Uyo;

ii. N300.00 damages for trespass; and

iii. a perpetual injunction restraining the defendants/respondents from further trespass on the land

and fixed today, the 4th day of March 1983, as the date for giving the reasons for the dismissal. I now hereby, give the said reasons.

Appellants filed their Brief dated 10th August 1982 but the respondents filed no Brief by reason, apparently, of the late receipt, by respondents’ counsel, Chief E.E. Anwan, of the appellants’ Brief. Chief Anwan would have been entitled to an adjournment in order to file the respondents’ Brief but he was prepared to go on with the appeal should this Court decide to permit him, under Order 9 rule 6(5) of the Supreme Court Rules, to argue the appeal without his filing a Brief. As the matter for determination was a very narrow and simple one and as the parties came all the way from Cross River State and the respondents were ready to go on with the appeal without filing a Brief, this Court did not consider that in the interest of justice the parties should be put to the further burden and inconvenience of an adjournment and, therefore, decided that argument on the appeal should proceed.

As it turned out, at the close of the argument for the appellants, the Court, being of the view that the points raised by the appellants in support of the appeal did not deserve a reply from the respondents, did not call upon Chief Anwan to reply.

For a proper understanding of the issues in the appeal it will, perhaps, be of some assistance to trace the facts of the case, in a synopsis, from the High Court to the Court of Appeal before the case got to this Court.

As I had stated, it was a land dispute over a piece of land situate at Ifiayong, Uyo. The contestants were the people of Ifiayong, Uyo (as plaintiffs) and the people of Udi (as defendants), also in Uyo. The contest between the two villages had been long drawn out dating as far back as 1933. The pleadings show this clearly:

“STATEMENT OF CLAIM

1. The real plaintiffs are the people of Ifiayong. The plaintiffs on record have the authority of the people of Ifiayong to bring this action on their behalf.
2. The defendants on record are sued for themselves and as representatives of Idu people.
3. The areas the subject matter of this claim are called Ada Ita, Ebebit, Obot Idim Ibet. These are portions of Ifiayong land property of the plaintiffs. These areas are shown on the plan No. EPS/97/Ld dated 12th March 1969 prepared by Mr. Okon E. Eyo, Licensed Surveyor and Architect, Calabar.
4. The whole of Ifiayong land is the property of the plaintiffs, who have been in possession of it since the time of its founder, Etuong Akpan Ayan in 1155.
5. The 3 parcels of land are farm lands of the plaintiffs.
6. The plaintiffs have boundary with the defendants. One of the significant marks on the boundary is Akpatre Ntem Usung, and (sic) ancient boundary between them, which has been respected by both villages until recently. Another significant boundary mark is the Eyie Ayaiya Stream.
7. On or about the month of January 1969 the defendants without leave or licence of the plaintiffs broke and entered the areas of land aforesaid and cultivated portions thereof, harvested palm fruits therefrom and planted new ones thereon.
8. The defendants have threatened to continue the acts of trespass.
9. The plaintiffs therefore claim:-

i. 300 pounds damages for trespass;

ii. Perpetual injunction to restrain the defendants by themselves, agents, workmen from further acts of trespass on the said 3 acres of land.