Rufus Isaac V Ohn Odigie Imasuen (2016)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

MUSA DATTIJO MUHAMMAD, J.S.C.

This is an appeal against the judgment of the Court of Appeal, Benin Division, delivered on 25th April 2006 affirming the decision of the trial Court, the High Court of Edo State, in Suit No.B/I/84 dated 1st March 1994. The Court which judgment is being appealed against will, from now on, be referred to as lower Court. The brief facts of the case which inform the appeal are hereinunder captured.

The respondent was the plaintiff with the appellant being the defendant at the trial Court. By the endorsement in paragraph 21 of his further amended statement of claim dated 29th June 1988, the respondent claimed against the appellant declaration of title to the right of occupancy to the land in dispute delineated and verged pink in plan No.150/BD/1091/86 of 29-7-86, damages for trespass and injunction.

Pleadings were filed and exchanged. Trial proceeded on the basis of respondent’s amended statement of claim at pages of 19 – 21 of the record of appeal dated 7th October 1986 and appellant’s 2nd further amended statement of defence at pages 42 – 45 dated and filed 5th November 1990. From the pleadings and

1evidence on record, respondent’s case is that in January 1979, the appellant, on being found on the land in dispute and challenged by the respondent, informed the latter that he acquired the land six years earlier. The respondent reported the matter to the Oba of Benin’s palace as confirmed by PW8, Chief Ojo Udobor, the Esasonyen of Benin. A committee including Chief Ojo Udobor was constituted and delegated to enquire into the issue and report back to the palace. The Oba’s inability to settle the matter explains the respondent’s resort to the writ of summons and the suit against the appellant that brought about this appeal.

Appellant’s case is a total denial of respondent’s entitlement to the reliefs he seeks. Appellant does not, however, counter claim.

After a full trial, including counsel’s addresses, the trial Court found for the respondent. Aggrieved by the trial Court’s decision, the appellant appealed to the lower Court on a Notice filed on 8th March 1994 containing a sole ground. In addition to his original ground the appellant, with leave of the lower Court, filed two additional grounds of appeal which, without their particulars, read as follows:-

“(i) The

2 learned trial judge erred in law when she granted the plaintiff a declaration to the parcel of land in issue.

(ii) The learned trial judge erred in law when she failed to apply the equitable doctrine of laches and acquiescence in the instant case.”

From the three grounds of appeal, the lower Court was urged to determine the appeal on the basis of the lone issue distilled by each of the parties to the appeal.

Appellant’s issue for the determination of the appeal at the lower Court reads:-

“Whether the respondent was entitled to the declaration of title sought at the lower Court.”

Respondent’s issue at the lower Court reads:-