Chief Obono Egom & Ors. V. Mr. Eno Omini Eno & Anor. (2007)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

NGWUTA J.C.A.

This is an appeal against the judgment of the High Court of justice, Cross River State Ugep Judicial Division, Holden at Ugep. In the amended statement of claim the appellants, as plaintiffs, claimed the following reliefs against the respondents, as defendants:

“1. A declaration that the plaintiffs are the owners or Landlords of a parcel of land known as “Nyana Land” which is situated along Calabar – Ikom Highway directly opposite Otalosi No 2 compound, Ijiman. Ugep Urban, Yakurr Local Government Area.

2. An order of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants, their agents, underlying servants or privies from further trespassing on the said “Nyana Land.”
3. N200, 000.00 as general damages for trespass.”

In the statement of defence, the respondents as defendants, not only denied the appellants claim but counterclaimed for themselves and on behalf of Letankom Patri lineal clan against the appellants jointly and severally as follows:

“1 A declaration of a right of occupancy to the Nyana piece or parcel of land situate and bordering the Ikom Calabar High way bounded in the North by Ugom land in Chief Iwara Eliot Akpan’s possession, South by Lebulibulikom land in Chief Obono Ofem’s possession, West by Kokomkolo – Ijom land and the East by the said Ikom – Calabar High Way.

2. Perpetual injunction restraining the defendants either by themselves, their assigns or agent from entering or further entering the said Nyana land.
3. N500,000.00 general damages for trespass.”

In addition, the 1st respondent counter-claimed separately for himself against the appellants:

“Jointly and severally the sum of N159, 610.00 being the cost or value of materials at site and building under construction destroyed by the plaintiffs.”

The said sum of N159, 610.00 is made up of 21 claims for items purchased and payments for labour.

At the end of the trial the learned trial Judge dismissed the appellants’ claims, entered judgment for the respondents on the counter-claim and awarded N20, 000.00 as general damages in favour of the respondents. The lower court also awarded the sum of N159, 610.00 claimed by the 1st respondent as special damages.

Aggrieved, the appellants, in their amended notice of appeal, pursuant to an order of the court, appealed on 14 grounds.

The appellants were granted leave to depart from the rules of the court regarding compilation of records for appeal and a further order that the appeal be determined on the bundle of documents compiled by them. The bundle of documents deemed to be the records for this appeal is most unsatisfactory. The table of contents indicates that the bundle runs from page 1 to page 225. The notice of appeal is shown in the table of contents to be at pages 217 – 225. However the last of the judgment is page 57 and the amended notice of appeal attached after the last page of the judgment is not numbered. The first page of the written address of the plaintiffs is not numbered.

The numbering started at the second page and ended at page 18, contrary to the contents placing the address at page, 45 to 65 of the bundle deemed to be the records. The numbering where it is done at all is at random and done without sequence.

The grounds of appeal consist mostly of passages reproduced from the judgment. For instance ground 9 alleged to be error in law consists of a passage of 13 lines from the judgment and the particular is also a passage of 13 lines.

Learned counsel ought to have formulated a simple precise and cogent ground of appeal from the passage in the judgment instead of quoting a whole passage in the guise of a ground of appeal. See Anadi v. Okoji (1977) 7 SC 57 at 64; Lamai v. Orbih (1980) 5-7 SC 28 at 50, Abegunde & Ors v. Adelu & Ors (1971) 1 NMLR 10 at 13 grounds 3, 7, 9 and 13 being merely passages quoted from the judgment are incompetent and are hereby struck out.