Itok V. Udoyo (2020)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

KUDIRAT MOTONMORI OLATOKUNBO KEKERE-EKUN, J.S.C. 

The dispute in this appeal began at the District Court, Eket, Akwa Ibom State in 1973. The appellant and two others for themselves and on behalf of the Nung Itok family of Iko Ekwa sued the defendants for themselves and as representatives of the Nung Akwaowo family for a declaration of title in respect of a parcel of land situate at Iko Ekwa village and known as “Ndon-Okpunak.” Along the line, the other plaintiffs died leaving the appellant alone to prosecute the case. Out of the six defendants, three died leaving three. Presently the respondent herein is the sole representative of the Nung Akwaowo family.

At the conclusion of the trial before the District Court, judgment was entered in favour of the plaintiff (now appellant). The Nung Akwaowo family was aggrieved by the decision and filed an appeal before the Chief Magistrate Court, Eket. The appeal was successful. On 17/6/1996, the learned Chief Magistrate set aside the judgment of the District Court and dismissed the plaintiffs’ suit. The Nung Itok family were dissatisfied with the decision and appealed to the High

1

Court sitting in its appellate jurisdiction. The High Court allowed the appeal and affirmed the judgment of the Eket District Court delivered on 20/7/1982 in favour of the plaintiffs/respondents/appellants. It was the turn of the defendants/appellants/respondents to express dissatisfaction with the judgment of the High Court. They filed an appeal at the Court below. The Court allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment of the appellate High Court and affirmed the judgment of the appellate Chief Magistrate’s Court.

Once again, the losing party, the present appellant is aggrieved and has approached this Court as the final arbiter to resolve the dispute once and for all.

In his Notice of appeal filed on 25/9/09, the appellant raised 3 grounds of appeal, which are reproduced below shorn of their particulars:

Ground 1

The lower Court erred in law in hearing and entertaining the appeal when the appellant failed to fulfil a condition precedent to conferring jurisdiction on the Court.

Ground 2

The lower Court erred in law when it held that “from the above, the description of the land in dispute as given by the respondent is much

2

more detailed than, and at variance with the description of the land in the claim before the trial Court.”

Ground 3