Aaron Okarika & Ors. V. Mr. Isaiah Samuel & Ors. (2004)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

FABIYI, J.C.A.

This is an appeal against the judgment of Olukole, J. sitting at the High Court of Justice, Port Harcourt, Rivers State of Nigeria on the 12th day of May, 1994.

At the court below, parties initiated two suits which were, by oral application, consolidated for hearing. The respondents herein, as plaintiffs at the trial court, filed suit No. AHC/12/82 against the appellants herein, as defendants at the trial court and claimed in paragraph 21 of their statement of claim at page 52 of the transcript record of appeal as follows:

“(a) Declaration to a customary right of occupancy over all that piece or parcel of land known as and called ‘Mbide land’ situate at Oboburu town in ALGA.

(b) N5,000.00 general damages for trespass.

(c) A perpetual injunction restraining the defendants, their agents or servants from entering the land or doing any manner of work whatsoever on the land.”

The appellants herein later initiated suit No. AHC/17/82 as plaintiffs against the respondents as defendants. In paragraph 13 of their statement of claim at page 78 of the record of appeal, they claimed against the respondents herein as follows:-

“(a) Declaration of a customary right of occupancy over all that piece or parcel of land called ‘Ibewa-Uzor’ situate at Oboburu town and particularly verged red in plaintiffs’ plan.

(b) N5,000.00 general damages for trespass.

(c) A perpetual injunction restraining the defendants, their agents or servants from committing further acts of trespass on the land.”

Upon due completion of pleadings in both suits, the learned trial Judge consolidated them for hearing in one fell swoop. Each side banked on traditional evidence as well as acts of ownership and/or possession. There is the talk of arbitration by having recourse to their local ‘juju’. At the hearing, the plans filed by both sides were admitted by consent. I mention it here since the appellants made an issue out of it.

After the completion of evidence as adduced by the parties and their witnesses, counsel on both sides addressed the court at considerable lengths. The learned trial Judge properly reviewed the evidence garnered by him. After applying the law to the facts to the best of his ability on relevant issues canvassed before him, he entered judgment in favour of the respondents as per their claims in suit No. AHC/12/82 and dismissed the appellants’ claims in suit No. AHC/17/82.

The appellants felt unhappy with the judgment of the learned trial Judge. Their notice of appeal was accompanied by a total of nine (9) grounds of appeal.

The appellants formulated six issues for determination on pages 2-3 of their brief of argument. They read as follows:-