Patrick Erhunmunse V. John Ehanire (1998)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

ROWLAND, J.C.A. 

The appellant was the defendant and the respondent was the plaintiff in suit No. OR/ACC/86R/87 filed and tried at the Oredo Area Customary Court, Benin City.

The plaintiffs claim against the defendant at the Area Customary Court is as follows:-

“(a) Possession of the storey building known and situate at NO.3 Osagie Street, Benin City.

(b) An order that the defendant do quit the storey building and premises known as and situate at No.3 Osagie Street, Benin City forthwith.

(c) An order that the defendant pay up outstanding electricity bills and water rate in respect of the said premises.

(d) Mesne profit at the rate of N400.00 per month from 1st March, 1986 till possession is given up.”

The plaintiff testified and called four witnesses while the defendant also testified and called three witnesses.

During the trial the defence counsel addressed the court and raised the issue of lack of jurisdiction in the trial court in that the case is alleged to involve the issue of who out of the plaintiff and the defendant had title to the house at No.3, Osagi Street, Off St. Saviour Road, Off Sakponba Road, Benin City a place that is said to be clearly within the radius of 16km of Ring Road, Benin City and therefore an urban area under the Urban Area Designation Edict. Defence counsel further submitted that the proper forum for the determination of the case should have been the High Court which has exclusive jurisdiction over land matters in urban area.

The trial Area Customary Court overruled the objection raised and went on to hear the case and delivered judgment in favour of the plaintiff.

Dissatisfied, the defendant appealed to the Edo State High Court, essentially on the issue of jurisdiction.

The court at the conclusion of arguments, held that the Oredo Area Customary Court had jurisdiction in the matter. The defendant being dissatisfied with the judgment of the appellate High Court has further appealed against the decision of the lower court to this court.

The appellant raised two issues for determination. They read:

“1. Whether the dispute between the parties in the trial court did or did not involve the issue of title to land in an urban area?