Bartholomew Onwubuariri & Ors. V. Isaac Igboasoyi & Ors (2011)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

WALTER SAMUEL NKANU ONNOGHEN, J.S.C.

This is an appeal against the judgment of the Court of Appeal holden at Port Harcourt in appeal NO CA/PH/97/95 delivered on the 24th day of March, 2003 in which the court allowed the appeal of the present respondents against the judgment of the High Court of Imo State holden at Oguta in Suit No. HOG/55/86 delivered on the 29th day of July, 1994.

The present appellants, as plaintiff at the trial court instituted the action against the respondents jointly and severally claiming the following reliefs:

“(a) Declaration that plaintiffs are entitled to customary right of occupancy to the pieces or parcels of land known and called “Ohia Owerre and “Ala Ogwugwu Iyiala Amaechi” situate at Amadehi Uhulu in Oru Local Government Area within Oguta Judicial Division.

(b) Perpetual injunction restraining the defendants by themselves their agents and or servants from trespassing into the said “Ohia Owerre Land.

(c) N1,000.00 (one thousand naira) damages for trespass on the said “Ohia Owerre land”.

(d) An order against the defendants for forfeiture of “Ala Ogwugwu Iyiala Land.”

The facts of the case include the following. It is the case of the plaintiffs/appellants that the two pieces of land supra form part of a large piece of land originally deforested by their ancestor, Amadehi who farmed thereon and reaped the economic trees in it; that Amadehi had three sons viz: Ezeala, Ezike and Amama; that the plaintiffs are the descendants of Ezeala that is why they are called Umu-Ezeala; that the two portions of land in dispute were given to Ezeale as his share of their father’s land; that they have been exercising maximum acts of ownership over the two portions of land by farming, reaping economic trees and have juju shrine called “Ogwugwu Iyiala” thereon.

It is also the case of the plaintiffs that the defendants/respondents originally were of Umuokpara kindred who had a dispute with Dinwoke of Umuanna in Ubulu resulting in the disintegration of Umuokpara people as a result of which some of them who had marriage relationship with the plaintiffs fled their land and were given the land in dispute by the plaintiffs, their in-laws to settle for which they paid tribute that later on the defendants failed or stopped paying the tributes resulting in a strained relationship between the parties that there was an arbitration between the parties before their traditional ruler, Ute Eze Ben Obi following acts of trespass by the defendants; that the defendants challenged the title of the plaintiffs to the land hence the action.

On the other hand, it is the case of the defendants that they are of Umuokpara kindred of Amadehi not Ubaha. They referred to the two pieces of land as “Okpula Umezun and “Ohia Oweri Okpulo”, they denied the traditional history of the plaintiffs as regards the two pieces of land in dispute and state that the plaintiffs are not decendants of Amadehi as claimed that it is the defendants who rather inherited the land from Amadehi from time immemorial as they farm and live therein; that they granted portions of the land to the forefathers of the plaintiffs who fled from Obakpu their original home and pleaded the proceedings in the native court Suit No. 397/16, Emene of Ubutu vs Chief Ewerem of Ubulu to show that the plaintiffs are from Ohakpu, not Ubulu.

In the version of the defendants, Amadehi had three sons, Opara, Ezum and Dara, and that the defendants are the descendants of Opara hence their being called Umuopara of Amadehi; that Ezeala, Ezeke and Amama, are stranger elements who came from Ohakpu; that the defendants never paid tribute to the plaintiffs; the defendants denied trespassing on the land in dispute.

At the conclusion of the trial, the learned Trial Judge preferred the traditional history of the plaintiffs to that of the defendants and consequently entered judgment for the plaintiffs.

However, upon appeal to the Court of Appeal Holden at Port Harcourt, the decision of the trial court was reversed giving rise to the instant further appeal, the issues for the determination of which have been formulated by the learned Counsel for the appellants, C.O. ANAH, ESQ in the appellants’ brief of argument filed on 10/9/03 as follows:-

“The 1st issue for determination is whether the Court of Appeal rightly admitted Exhibit 1, and if it so rightly admitted it was the said exhibit necessary and/or important for the determination of the plaintiff/Appellants’ case.