Chief Ita Okon Aqua V. Chief David Ekanem (2008)
LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report
M. A. OWOADE, J.C.A.
This is an appeal against the judgment of Hon. Justice Philomena Ekpe delivered on 21st December, 2007 at the Akpabuyo Judicial Division of the High Court of Cross River State.
The Respondent as Plaintiff before the lower court issued a writ of summons accompanied by a Statement of claim against the Defendant/Appellant on 18/3/2005.
The claim of the Plaintiff/Respondent’ became crystallized in his Amended Statement of claim of 21st February 2006.
- Whereof the Plaintiff. claims against the Defendant as follows:
(a) The sum of N10,000,000.00 (Ten Million Naira) in that the Defendant without any lawful excuse, reason license or authority entered the Plaintiff’s land situate and lying at Edik Idim Ikot Effanga in Akpabuyo Local Government Area.
(b) Perpetual injunction restraining the Defendant whether by himself, servants, workers, agents, or otherwise whosoever from further acts of trespass and on doing anything inconsistent with the Plaintiffs proprietary interest in respect of the piece or parcel of land situate at Edik Idim Ikot Effanga, Akpabuyo Local Government Area of Cross River State.
On 16th April, 2007, the Defendant/Appellant filed a further Amended Statement of defence and counter claim, wherein he also claimed damages for trespass and injunction against the Plaintiff/Respondent. The Plaintiff/Respondent filed a further Amended Reply to Statement of defence on 30/5/2007.
The Respondent’s case was that he leased the land in dispute from Etinyin Effanga Offiong House (or family) in 1976 and surveyed it in 1986. He appointed a caretaker and in 2005 when he sent to clear the land he found that the Appellant had planted oil palms on the land. When the Respondent asked the Appellant to remove the palms, he refused. The Respondent hired people to clear the land whereupon the Appellant got the Respondent arrested and as a result the Respondent filed this suit.
The Appellant’s case was that the Etinyin Effanga House has no right to lease the land in dispute to the Respondent because the land does not belong to that family.
The Appellant claims that the land in dispute belonged originally to Obutong community who gave it to his grand mother, from whom his father inherited the land and he inherited in turn from his father.
The Plaintiff/Respondent called six (6) witnesses while four (4) witnesses testified for the Defendant/Appellant. At the end of the trial, the learned trial Judge resolved the question, who has better title? in favour of the Plaintiff/Respondent and entered judgment in his favour.
Aggrieved by the decision, the Appellant file a Notice of Appeal with nine (9) grounds of appeal on 23/6/2008.
Appellant filed his brief of argument on 21/4/2008, and the Respondent filed his own brief on 3/6/2008. The Appellant filed a Reply brief on 12/6/2008. The Appellant formulated the following issues for determination.
- Whether on the evidence adduced in this case the learned trial Judge was right to hold that Exhibit 1 conveyed a valid title to the land in dispute on the Respondent.
- Whether the Respondent’s claims in this suit were statute barred.
- Whether the Appellant had proved his counter-claim for damages for trespass and an order of injunction in this suit.
The Respondent on the other hand, formulated the following issues:
Leave a Reply