Robinson Nwangwu V. Emenike Ukachukwu & Anor (2000)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

M.D. MUHAMMAD, J.C.A.

This is an interlocutory appeal against the ruling of G.U. Ononiba J, of the Anambra High Court sitting at Nnewi. The ruling is dated 14th November, 1996.

At the Court below, the Respondents as plaintiffs had claimed as follows:-

1) A declaration that the plaintiffs are entitled as owners in possession to the customary right of occupancy in respect of the piece or parcel of land known as and called Ukpuno Ejiogu in Umuezedom, Ubahu Okija, within jurisdiction (sic) better described and more particularly delineated in the survey plan No. MEC/1838/84 filed with the statement of claim, annually valued at N10.00.

(2) The sum of N500 for trespass.

(3) Perpetual injunction restraining the Defendant, his agents and/or servants from further acts of trespass on the said land.

Pleadings were ordered, filed and exchanged. Thereafter, the Appellant as Defendant by his notice of motion contested the jurisdiction of the lower Court. He prayed the lower Court to strike out suit No.HN/52/83. The land, the subject matter of the suit, was situated in a rural area and therefore not within the jurisdiction of the Court.

In a considered ruling the Court-overruled Appellant’s objection to the exercise of its jurisdiction. Let me for case of reference reproduce extensively the ruling of the lower Court as reflected at p.26-31 of the record of Appeal. The ruling reads in part thus:

“…The present application to strike out the suit No. HN/52/83 is predicated on the recent decision of the Supreme Court in Sadikwu v. Dalori (1996) 4 SCNJ 209. The claim in Dalori’s case supra includes an order that the plaintiff is the lawful owner of a piece of land located in a rural area, which is a subject of customary certificate of occupancy. The jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain the case was challenged. Judgment was given for the plaintiff but on appeal to the Court of Appeal, the appeal was allowed. The Supreme Court considered the provision of S. 39 and 41 of the Land Use Act 1978 together with S.41(2) of the Land Tenure Law of Northern Nigeria applicable to Borno State and came to the conclusion that High Court in Borno State lacks jurisdiction to deal with land matters which are subject to customary right of occupancy. If all things were equal, there would have been no need for further argument as the supreme Court’s decision binds every Court in Nigeria. There is however an aspect of the matter that cannot be treated lightly. (Italics supplied for emphasis).

The trial Court in its ruling further examined the import of S.13 of the Anambra State High Court Edict No. 16 of 1987, S.66 of the Anambra State Customary Court Edict No.6 of 1984 and S.236 of the 1979 Constitution and concluded by dismissing the Appellant’s objection to the exercise of the Court’s jurisdiction.

The Appellant being dissatisfied filed the present appeal.

The Appellant’s two grounds of appeal are hereunder reproduced without their particulars:-

Ground One

That the trial Court erred in law when it dismissed the defendant/appellant’s application requesting the trial Court not to try suit No. HN/52/83 for lack of jurisdiction having regard to the recent decision in the case of Sadikwu v. Dolori (1996) 4 SCNJ 209.