Oyibo Madubuonwu & Ors. V. I. Anumudu Nnalue & Ors. (1999)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

I. KATSINA-ALU, J.S.C.

The plaintiffs in this action represent the 1st Nkakwu Family in Aturia quarter of Omor in Uzo-Uwani Local government area of the then Anambra State. The defendants represent Ero-Onyia Family in Ore-Nja quarter of Omor. In the action filed at the Nsukka High Court, the plaintiffs claimed declaration of title to the land shown in their survey plan MEC/2081/83 dated 1st September, 1983, damages for trespass and perpetual injunction to restrain further acts of trespass, By a judgment dated 15th June, 1990 the learned trial Judge Nweje J. granted the plaintiffs all the reliefs claimed by them. The defendants’ appeal to the Court of Appeal was dismissed in a judgment delivered by that Court dated 8th June, 1992. The defendants have further appealed to this Court.

The facts of this case are simple and straight forward. The plaintiffs and the defendants are from Omor Town in the then Uzo-Uwani Local government Area of Anambra State. Omor Town itself is made up of four (4) quarters. Each quarter is further made up of various families/units. The four (4) quarters are:

(i) Ore-Nja quarter made up of Isiokwe, Umu-Okpanta and Ero-Onyia families,

(ii) Akanato quarter – made up of Uwali, Amaukwu, Agbaja, Oyi, Isinkwa and Umuatum families.

(iii) Aturia quarter – made up of ltuku, Isiekenabo, Isiofe, Umuagbala, Isadi, Isi-Nkakuru and Isiokpaya families.

(iv) Amikwe quarter – made up of Umuegbu, Amikwe-Etiti and Akara families.

The plaintiffs hail from lsi-Nkakwu family in Aturia quarter while the defendants are from Ero-Onyia family in Ore-Nja quarter having migrated thereto from Agbaja subsection in Akanato quarter. Their kith and kin still remain in their original homestead at Agbaja in the said Akanato quarter.

It is common ground that the various quarters constituting Omor town own distinct portions of land.

The defendants who are appellants filed their brief of argument on 20th February, 1995. At page 2 of their brief of argument they formulated the following questions for determination in this appeal:

(i) Whether the court below gave due weight or consideration to the presumption (which arose on the evidence) that the defendants are the true owners of the land in dispute.

(ii) Was the Court of Appeal correct in affirming the finding of the High Court on the plaintiffs’ traditional evidence.

(iii) Whether the court below was correct in describing the dispute between the parties to this action as being “more or less in the nature of a boundary dispute between two villages”.

(iv) Whether the court below was correct in regarding the question “whether or not the land in dispute fell within the Aturia Village of the plaintiffs” as the basis of the rival contentions of the parties to this action.