Ikedieze Okemiri & Ors V. Odoemenam Okezie Chukwueke (2016)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

PETER OLABISI IGE, J.C.A.

This is an appeal against the judgment of the HIGH COURT OF ABIA STATE contained in the judgment of HON. JUSTICE ONUOHA A. K. OGWE delivered on 6th day of March, 2013.

The Respondent herein had as a CLAIMANT in the Court below for himself and as representing the members of CHUKWUEKE FAMILY OF AMUDA ELUAMA UZUAKOLI, in Suit NO. HUZ/7/2007 claimed against the Defendants now Appellants in the Court below for the following reliefs:
1. The sum of Four Hundred Million Naira (N400,000,000.00) being special and general damages for trespass to a piece or parcel of land in possession of the Plaintiffs situate and lying in an area of land traditionally known as and called ?UBIORO in AMUDA ELUAMA UZUAKOLI in BENDE L.G.A. ABIA STATE NIGERIA within the jurisdiction of the Court and in possession of the Plaintiff and which said land was the subject Supreme Court decision in Suit NO. SC/215/1984 decided in favour of the Plaintiffs. (sic).
2. An injunction permanently restraining the Defendants, their servants, agent and/or workmen from trespassing into the said piece of

1

parcel of land or interfering with it in any manner whatsoever.?

The parties duly exchanged pleadings. However the Defendants later on in the proceedings amended their Statement of Defence wherein they set up a Counter-Claim as follows:
?COUNTER ? CLAIM
The Defendants Counter-Claim against the Claimant as follows:
(a) The sum of N500,000.00 being damages for trespass.
(b) An Order of perpetual injunction restraining the Claimant, his agents, servants and or workmen from further entry upon or from otherwise dealing with the land known as and called ?UZO MKPEM UGA? lying, being and situate at Amuda, Eluama, Uzuakoli within jurisdiction of this honorable Court: in a manner inconsistent with the interests, rights or title of the Defendants
PARTICULARS OF COUNTER ? CLAIM
The Defendants, rely for this Counter ? Claim on the facts averred in the Statement of Defence.?

The Claimant (now Respondent) filed DEFENCE TO COUNTER ? CLAIM OF THE DEFENDANT. It is dated 20/9/2010. Earlier in 2008 the Respondent filed Reply to the Statement of Defence of the Appellant before the

2

Appellants amended their Statement of Defence.

The matter proceeded to trial. The Claimant called four (4) witnesses while the Defendants called three witnesses. After the addresses of learned Counsel, the learned trial Judge gave a considered judgment in the suit on 6th day of March, 2013. (Pages 294 ? 306 of the record).

The Learned trial Judge found as follows:
?The state of pleadings and evidence are that the Defendants did not prove their Counter-Claim. At any rate, the Counter-Claim is based on the erroneous assumption or basis that land in dispute is Uzo Mkpeu Uga and I have made findings of fact that it is indeed Ubi Oro and not Nkpeu Uga. The Supreme Court has already sealed the fate of Defendants concerning Ubi Oro so there is no how they can succeed in getting title over it when the Supreme Court dismissed their claim and held that Ubi Oro is not a communal land. Now they are claiming that Ubi Oro by a new name they gave it is a communally managed land. I lack the competence to grant title to a party whose claim has been dismissed by the Supreme Court. It is trite that when a claim is made for trespass and perpetual

3

injunction, title is in issue.
Moreover the witnesses of Defendants gave evidence in support of Claimants? case. They admitted the features of the Ubi Oro. I therefore re-iterate that what is in dispute here is Ubi Oro land and not Uzo Nkpeu Uga.
So, the Defendants are stopped from re-litigating it, in all, I find for Claimants and order as follows:-
(1) The sum of Two Million Naira being general damages for trespass on 11/4/2007 to the parcel of land in possession of Claimants called Ubi Oro situate at Amuda Eluama Uzuakoli which was the subject matter of SC/215/1984.
(2) An Order of injunction permanently restraining the Defendants, their servants, agents and/or workmen from trespassing into the said parcel of land or in anyway interfering with it.
COUNTER-CLAIM
I have already discussed and considered the Counter-claim.
The Defendants Counter ?claimed as follows:-
(a) The sum of #500,000 being damages for trespass.
(b) An order of perpetual injunction restraining the Claimants, his agents, servants and/or workmen from further entry upon or from otherwise dealing with the ?Uzo Nkpeu Uga?

4