Chukwudozie Anyabunsi V. Emmanuel Ugwunze (1995)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

IGUH, J.S.C. 

In the High Court of the former Anambra State of Nigeria, the plaintiff, who is now the respondent, for himself and on behalf of members of the Umungali family of Isu Village, Oba instituted an action against the appellant, who therein was the defendant, claiming, as subsequently amended, as follows –

1. N200.00 being general damages for trespass on the plaintiff’s piece or parcel of land known as Ana Okpuno Umungali situate at Isu Village, Oba in the Idemili Local Government Area of Anambra State and
2. Perpetual injunction restraining the defendant, his servants, agents and/or privies from any further acts of trespass upon the plaintiff’s said land.

Pleadings were ordered in the suit and were duly settled, filed and exchanged.

At the subsequent trial, both parties testified on their own behalf and called witnesses.

The respondent’s case is that the land in dispute shown verged pink in Plan No. MEC/206/77, Exhibit A, is situate right in the heart of their larger area of land farmed and occupied by his family from time beyond human memory and shown verged green in the said plan, Exhibit A. The entire portion of land verged green in Exhibit A is the property of the Umungali family of Isu Village, Oba on whose behalf he was prosecuting the suit. The said portion of land verged green in Exhibit A roughly corresponds with the land claimed by the appellant and verged blue in the appellant’s Plan No. MEC/2903/78 tendered in evidence at the hearing as Exhibit B. The appellant claimed ownership and possession, not only of the area verged pink on Exhibit A and B upon which he was said to have trespassed, but also of the entire portion verged blue in his Plan Exhibit B. Consequently, the campus bellum in the suit naturally became expanded from trespass to the said portion of land verged pink in both plans to include the issue of title to the entire land was verged green and blue in the plans Exhibits A and B respectively.

It is the respondent’s case that the land in dispute was only a portion of their “Ana Okpuno Umungali” land which was first acquired as a virgin land by his great grand ancestor, Ngali, the father of Umeobieli who is the great grand father of the respondent. Within this land in dispute is the “Okwuani” juju shrine which is owned, retained and worshipped by the respondent’s family members. A portion of this Okpuno Umungali land verged purple in Exhibit A was alloted to the appellant in 1960 by the respondent’s family on payment of tribute. This portion of land on which the appellant lives is not in dispute in this case. A yet another portion of the respondent’s land on which St. Paul’s Anglican School and Parsonage stand was granted to the Isu Community by the respondent’s family. This is the area verged yellow in both plans, Exhibits A and B. This grant is evidenced by Exhibit C.

The respondent further claimed that when in 1976, his family discovered that the appellant had not paid his tribute for five years, they demanded payment in writing from him. The appellant responded by claiming for the first time the said land on which he lived as his personal property. A dispute consequently arose between both parties which was looked into by the Isu Akanato elders under customary law. The elders advised the appellant to resume payment of his tribute to the respondent’s family. The proceedings of this customary arbitration is Exhibit D. It was as a result of the decision in this customary arbitration that the appellant trespassed upon the land in dispute and destroyed the respondent’s farm crops thereon hence this action.

The appellant, who is from Umuolianu family, a family totally different from the respondent’s family, claimed the land in dispute as his personal property. He denied that he obtained any land from the plaintiffs family on payment of tribute. He also claimed that his brother and himself granted to Oba people, the land upon which St. Paul’s School stands. He did not however remember when they made this grant to Oba people. He admitted that he reported the respondent’s family to the Isu Akanato elders in 1976 and that both parties submitted to their customary arbitration in respect of the area of land verged purple in Exhibit A on which he lives. According to him, the elders decided that the respondent should provide a juju on the said land for his removal under customary law to establish his ownership thereof.

When however, the respondent’s family failed to provide the juju, the land on which he lives was adjudged to be his bonafide property. He denied that the Umungali family was ever in possession of the land in dispute. PW1, PW2, PW3 and PW6, admittedly, belong to the same family as the appellant testified in support of the respondent’s case. They testified that the piece or parcel of land verged purple in Exhibit A and green in Exhibit B on which the appellant lives was granted to him by the respondent’s family as a customary tenant on payment of tribute. They also confirmed that it was the respondent’s Umungali family and not the appellant or his family, to which they all belonged, that granted St. Paul’s premises for the erection of a school.

At the conclusion of hearing, the learned trial Judge, Awogu, J.. as he then was, after a meticulous review of the evidence found for the respondent and decreed as follows:-

“The Plaintiff has clearly proved his case and is entitled to judgment. The Defendant made no effort to weaken the amount claimed as damages for trespass and so I award the Plaintiff the N200.00 damages claimed for the Defendant’s trespass on Ani Okpuno Umungali in dispute. The Plaintiff is also entitled to the injunction which he seeks. The Defendant, his servants and agents are hereby restrained from further trespass into the land in dispute shown in Pink on Plan No. MEC/206/77 filed by the plaintiff and marked Exhibit A. The cost of the action is assessed at N100.00 in favour of the Plaintiff.”

This was on the 29th January, 1981.

Being dissatisfied with this decision of the trial court, the appellant lodged an appeal against the same to the Court of Appeal, Enugu Division which in a unanimous judgment dismissed the appeal and affirmed the decision of the trial court on the 29th June, 1987. Aggrieved by this decision of the Court of Appeal, the appellant has further appealed to this court.

Altogether six grounds of appeal were filed by the appellant. These grounds of appeal, without their particulars, are as follows:-