Uwakwe Ugwu & Ors V. Christopher Attah & Ors (2016)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

MASSOUD ABDULRAHMAN OREDOLA, J.C.A.

This is an appeal against the decision of the Enugu State High Court, delivered by Hon. Justice A. O. Onovo, J., on the 23rd day of July, 2012. This suit was filed by the plaintiffs/respondents (for themselves and as representing Amogbo Community, Nsukka) against the defendants/appellants (for themselves and as representing Umu Ugwu Arua family, Amaeze Owerre Village Ihe/Owerre Autonomous Community). The suit borders on the alleged trespass into the plaintiffs/respondents’ land by the members of the defendants/appellants’ family. The plaintiffs/respondents were by the said suit claimed for the following reliefs:

“(a) N500,000 damages for trespass on portion of plaintiffs’ Amaogbo Uno land by the defendants.

(b) Perpetual injunction restraining the defendants, their servants, agents, privies or any person claiming through them from further trespass on the said land of plaintiffs.”

After the service of relevant processes and the refusal and/or neglect on the part of the defendants/appellants to either enter appearance or file any process in defence to the suit at the

1

appropriate time, the plaintiffs/respondents brought a motion on notice filed on 17/5/2012, seeking in the main for the order of the lower Court; “entering judgment in favour of the plaintiffs against the defendants in accordance with the plaintiffs’ claim”.

Again, the defendants/appellants failed and/or neglected to either properly enter appearance and file their relevant processes in defence to the suit, or file a counter-affidavit in opposition to the plaintiffs/respondents’ motion at the appropriate time. However, a day to the hearing of the plaintiffs/respondents’ motion for judgment, the defendants/appellants brought a motion on notice for extension of time and another motion on notice on the 11th day of June, 2012 to be precise, for extension of time “within which the Defendants/Applicants may file counter-affidavits to the motion on Notice for default judgment dated 17th day of May, 2012” with deeming order. Both motions on notice were duly heard and dismissed by the lower Court for being incompetent, while the plaintiffs/respondents’ motion on notice for default judgment, was granted. Consequently, a date was fixed for the said

2

judgment.

Before the date fixed for delivery of judgment, the defendant/appellants brought yet another motion on notice dated and filed on the 13th day of June, seeking for the following reliefs:

“1. Leave of the honourable Court to hear this Motion on Notice for extension of time first before delivering the Court’s Default Judgment in this case.

2. An order extending time within which the Defendants/Applicants may front-load their Memorandum of Appearance, Statement of Defence, Defence Survey Plan, List of Witnesses and Written Statement of witnesses.

3. An order deeming the Defence processes filed out of time without the prior order of the Court as duly filed and served the necessary fees having been paid.”