Paul Charlie & Ors. V. Chief E. T. Gudi & Ors. (2006)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

ISTIFANUS THOMAS, J.C.A.

The appeal is against the judgment of Charles-Granville (J) in suit No.PHC/478/88 delivered on 18th July 2000 at Port Harcourt High Court Rivers State.

The brief facts of this appeal is that at the lower court, the plaintiffs now respondents who were members of the Gudi Family of Abuloma, Port Harcourt, filed a Writ of Summons dated 13/07/1988 and by their amended statement of claim, they sought for:

“i) Customary Right of Occupation but later amended to Statutory Right of Occupancy situate at Gudi Compound Abuloma.

ii) N50,000.00 General Damages for destruction of crops and economic trees on the said land and,

iii) Perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from committing further trespass on the land in dispute.

The respondents also pleaded a survey plan No.CTH 930 – LD as per their paragraph 3 of the amended statement of claim which they claimed, contained the details of boundaries and important features of the land in dispute.

On the part of the appellants who were then defendants at the lower court, denied paragraph 3 of the amended statement of claim and so had joined issue on the identity, boundaries and features of the land in dispute with the respondents. On their part again, the appellants at the lower court, pleaded and tendered in evidence an other Survey Plan NO.BOE/R05/90LD on which they averred that the boundaries and features of the land were different from those relied upon by the respondents.

At the lower court, the respondents as plaintiffs called 3 witnesses who testified to prove their claims. The respondents closed their case, and the appellants called only one witness and tendered their plan Exhibit D which was admitted. At the end of addresses of both counsel, the learned trial Judge delivered his judgment and upheld the plaintiffs/respondents claims – see page 91 of the record.

Dissatisfied with the decision, defendants now simply to be referred to as appellants, filed their notice of appeal containing five grounds, then later, with the leave of this Court on 22-05-2002, an amended notice of appeal containing six additional grounds of appeal making a total of 11 (Eleven) grounds was granted. From this totality of grounds of appeal the appellants filed their briefs and distilled and formulated three issues as follows:

“1. Whether the identify of the land subject matter of this case was in dispute, whether the plaintiffs/respondents proved the identity of the said land to be entitled to the declaration and injunction sought? (grounds 2 and 8)

2. Whether the learned trial judge properly evaluated the evidence before him and whether upon the preponderance of evidence the learned trial judge ought to have entered judgment in favour of the plaintiffs (grounds 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9 and 10)
3. Whether the plaintiffs proved entitlement of damages “for the destruction of the plaintiffs’ crops and economic trees” on the land in dispute as required by law. (ground 11)

The respondents per their written briefs filed on 22-01-2003, formulated their 3 issues similar or identical to the appellants’ 3 issues. I need not to reproduce them. Parties filed and exchanged their written briefs.

I will proceed to parties’ issues one by one and consider their respective arguments.

ISSUE NO. I