Alhaji A. Alfa Adehi V. Atuluku Atega & Ors (1995)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

UWAIS, J.S.C. 

The history of this case began in 1982 with an action brought by the appellant herein in Area Court No.1, at Ugwolawo, in the former Benue State, jointly against all the respondents herein, claiming a farmland and the economic trees thereon. The action failed and it was dismissed by the Area Court. There was an appeal against the decision, by the appellant herein, to the High Court of former Benue State, sitting at Idah (Anyebe and Anuga, JJ,), which was dismissed on the 19th day of May, 1983. About a year later, that is on or about the 19th day of July 1984, all the respondents herein jointly took out an originating summons in the said High Court against the appellant herein, in which they claimed as follows –

“(1) A declaration that the plaintiffs by judgment of the Divisional Area Court I Ugwolawo, dated 25th day of October, 1982, in case No. CV.114/82, are not within the limits of the defendants’ land area situate at Okele, in Benue State of Nigeria.

(2) A further declaration that the plaintiffs are entitled to their individual exclusive possessions and use, as against the defendant, of all the said land areas that were the subject of the determination per their various defences in Case No. CV. 114/82 of 25/10/82.

(3) An order of injunction restraining the defendant, his agents or servants from harassing, intimidating, and encroaching or trespassing into the land areas of the plaintiffs per the determination of (1) and (2) above.”

In the affidavit attached to the originating summons paragraphs 9 and 10 read thus-

“9. That the defendant on the 27th, 28th, 29th days of March, 1984, entered on the plaintiffs land and areas covered by the Area Court judgment, Annexure 1, and not only farmed on it, but also caused the destruction of economic trees on the said land.

10. That the defendant has subsequently harassed intimidated, trespassed and encroached upon the said land areas.”

The judgments of the Area Court and the High Court sitting as an appellate court were exhibited to the affidavit as Exhibits 1 and 2 respectively. The appellant herein filed a counter affidavit, in which he deposed as follows in paragraphs 5 to 10 inclusive and paragraph 15-

“5. That I denied (sic) the charges of entering individual farms of Atuluku Atega and 38 others and committed the offences enumerated at paragraph 9 of the affidavit.

6. That I have not carried out any extension to my existing farm acreage since 1972 nor after the Ugwolawo case No. CV. 114 of 8/7/82; the size and location of the farms which have been described by the trial Judges including my buildings during locus in quo report.
7. That there was no report of any trespass and destruction of economic trees in the individual farms by any of the plaintiffs to the Police charge offices anywhere in the Benue State against the defendant.
8. That some of the plaintiffs and their agents have committed acts of the thefts, intimidation, attempt to murder policemen, used force on my farmers and lastly destroyed my buildings and properties at Okele Alfah all these cases have been reported to the Police by my individual farmers affected; are either being tried in the law courts or are being investigated by the police.
9. That the limitations of Okele Alfah is as shown by the sketch plan admitted in Case No. 166/76 admitted as Exhibit A3 in Case No. CV. 114 hereby pleaded.
10. That the limitation of Okele Alfah properly described by the Ugwolawo trial Judges in their locus in quo report CV. 114 agrees with the descriptions contained in Exhibits A.1, 2 and 4 hereby mentioned.”

“15. That it is in the interest of justice that the court should refuse the affidavit and order the plaintiffs in paragraph 13 to remove their farms where they were in accordance with the ruling (sic) in CV. 114.”

The learned trial Judge (Puusu. J.) was addressed by counsel for the parties before he adjourned the case for judgment. In a considered judgment which was delivered on the 15th day of March, 1986. the learned trial Judge held as follows:-

“The declaration and reliefs sought in this matter arise (sic) out of the two judgments quoted above. The contention by the defence that if the reliefs are granted it would mean the entire land of the defendant would be given out is baseless because it is the same land area that he sued the present plaintiffs to leave in Case No. CV. 114/82 which claim was dismissed and that decision (was) affirmed on appeal.

The second submission was that a surveyor should be ordered to survey the area and demarcate the boundaries. This also is not well taken because it was the present defendant who sued the present plaintiffs, there is no indication that he tendered any plans, he therefore knew the land area he wanted the defendants/plaintiffs to quit. From the evidence it is clear the area in dispute is not in doubt. As a follow up from this it is also not necessary for a court’s order to restrain the plaintiff from changing the name of Okele Alfah to Okele or Okele Ojokogbe since the land area is not in doubt. The real issue before the court is about ownership and mainly possession. These issues have been determined by courts of competent jurisdiction.

In view of the foregoing all the reliefs sought by the plaintiffs are hereby granted. There is no good defence to the application.” (parenthesis mine)