Iheaguta U. Nwagwu & Anor. V Ohazurike Okonkwo & Ors. (1987)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

KAZEEM, J.S.C

In this appeal, the Appellants who were the Plaintiffs at the trial, sued the Respondents as Defendants for the following claims:-

“(a) Declaration of title to all that piece or parcel of land known as and called OKPULO NWAGWU verged green in the plaintiffs plan No. E/GA1005/74 filed with this statement of claim and situate at Otulu Ahiara in Mbaise in the Owerri Judicial Division with annual value of N10.

(b) Order of the court that defendants accept the redemption money of N10. (ten naira) from the plaintiffs in respect of the said Okpulo Nwagwu.

(c) Order of the court giving possession of the said Okpulo Nwagwu to the plaintiffs.

(d) Perpetual injunction restraining the defendants, their agents, servants and/ or workmen from further entry upon the said piece of land.”

Judging from the pleadings and the evidence adduced on both sides the whole matter appears to have arisen from an incident which occurred over a Century ago before the advent of the Whiteman in Mbaise. Whereas the Appellants represent the family of Umunwagwu Otulu Ahiara in Mbaise within the present Owerri Judicial Division of Imo State, the Respondents, are the descendants of one Kpagha. According to the Appellants the story goes thus:-

It happened that there was a meeting between the families of Umunwagwu, Umuokoroafoerim and Umuoduehi. As the meeting was in progress, one person from Aguneze in Onicha Mbaise passed through the area without greeting the members of the three kind reds holding the meeting. Consequently, one Kpagha ordered that the person be flogged and beaten. That was done; and as a result, the person died from the injuries sustained thereby. His people therefore demanded an atonement. Kpagha was a slave dealer. He brought one of his slaves which the three kindreds involved in the murder purchased from him in the sum of “Iri Leri ato” now valued at N30.00 (thirty Naira). Each kindred therefore had to refund N10.00 (ten Naira) to Kpagha. Kpagha hailed from the kindred of the Defendants.

The slave was given as the atonement.

The kindred of Uwunwagwu (the Appellants) and the kindred of Umuoduehi did not have their N10.00 each to refund to Kpagha. In lieu of the amount, they pledged their respective portions of land to Kpagha. The land in dispute is the one allegedly pledged to Kpagha by the kindred of the Appellants.

But according to the Respondents, the story was not much different except that the land in dispute was said to have been given to Kpagha the Respondents’ ancestors, by the Appellants’ ancestors as absolute compensation in consideration of Kpagha’s relation, one Akasike who was surrendered to the people of Onicha Mbaise in atonement for their relation who was beaten to death by the Umuaghara Community comprising the three kindreds of Umunwagwu, Umuokoroafoerim and Umuoduehi. The present equivalent amount of what was said to be refundable to Kpagha at that time is a sum of N30. It does happen therefore that whereas the land in dispute is the one allegedly pledged to Kpagha by the Appellants in lieu of the refund of N10 to him and now being claimed as redeemable, the land given to Kpagha by the people of Umuoduehi in lieu of their own refund of N10 had not yet been claimed and it was said to be awaiting the result of this appeal. The Appellants’ contention is that the land is redeemable, being a pledge of land under customary law. But the Respondents’ case is that the land was given to Kpagha as an atonement for murder and is therefore irredeemable.

The Appellants in 1974, tendered money to the head of the Respondents’ family for the redemption of the land; but it was refused. The matter was then referred to a cultural group called the Aladinma Arbitrators for settlement when the Respondents demanded that a person be returned to them for the, one their ancestors surrendered to the Aguneze people for their own person who was murdered. The Aladinma Group found themselves unable to decide such an issue. Consequently, the Appellants took this action. .

At the conclusion of the trial, the learned trial judge found after reviewing the evidence on both sides that:-

(i) the Appellants failed to prove the identity of the land to which their claim related.