Benedict Udeorah & Ors V.okwundu Nwakonobi & Ors (2002)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

UBAEZONU, J.C.A.

The plaintiffs who are the respondents in this appeal sued the defendants who are the appellants to the High Court of Onitsha Judicial Division of Anambra State claiming as follows in their further amended statement of claim:

(vii) DECLARATION of title to the parcel of land known as and called “NNO-OMO” situate at EZI-UMUNYA village, Umunya, and verged PINK in the plan No.MEC/303/78.

(viii) N10,000.00 general damages for trespass.

(ix) AN ORDER of injunction restraining the defendants, their servants and agents from entering or remaining on “NNO-OMO” land verged PINK in the plan No. MEC/303/78 or doing anything thereon or in any manner whatsoever interferring with the plaintiffs’ rights of ownership and possession over the said land.

As can be seen from the parties on record, the plaintiffs sued in a representative capacity. The defendants were also sued in a representative capacity. In a judgment delivered by Amaizu J. (as he then was) he granted the plaintiffs/respondents the reliefs they claimed. The suit concerned a piece of land, which, according to the respondents, is situate at their Ezi Umunya village in Umunya and called “Nno-Omo” land. The court granted them the declaration of customary right of occupancy, N1000 damages for trespass, injunction and costs.

Against that judgment, the defendants/appellants have appealed to this court. Briefs have been exchanged by the parties. With the leave of this court, supplementary briefs were also filed and exchanged.

In their brief the appellants formulated 6 issues or questions for determination viz:-

“(i) Whether the court below was correct in law in refusing to accord any probative value to Exhibit 14.

(ii)  Whether the court below erred in law in failing to recognise and give effect to Exhibit 13 as proof of defendants/appellants’ title to the land in dispute and their light to possession thereof.

(iii) Whether the court below erred in failing to take any account of the evidence of DW2 (OGUNO ISIUZO) and of Exhibits 16.17 and 18 in respect of or relating to the ownership of adjoining lands by the defendants/appellants.

(iv) Whether the court below erred in failing to treat the composite plan Exhibit 8 as a reliable survey plan.

(v) Whether the court below was correct in admitting Exhibit 3 in evidence and in making use of the answers given in cross-examination of witnesses on the said Exhibit 3.

(vi) Whether the judgment of the court below was against the weight of evidence.”