Christopher Ogbemudia & Ors. V. Ekhator Otabor & Ors. (2012)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

CHIOMA EGONDU NWOSU-IHEME J.C.A. (Delivering the lead judgment)

The Suit from which the present appeal emanates was commenced by the Appellants as Plaintiffs at the Area Customary Court sitting at Abudu in Edo State against the Respondents as Defendants. Both parties were of the same IROKHIN Community though of different quarters.

While the Appellants hail from OHEN quarters, the Respondents hail from IGIEHEN quarters. The claim before the Customary Court was originally for declaration of title to land, damages for trespass and perpetual injunction. Later the claim was amended twice. The last amendment granted by court was headed “Further Amended Claim and sought the following reliefs at pages 28-28a (34-35) of the Records:

“1. That the Plaintiffs are entitled to enter, farm, harvest their crops in their farms indicated in the Survey Plan No. ER 3579, the land now in dispute.

2. Perpetual injunction restraining the defendants, their servants, agents, or privies from entering the land to disturb the Plaintiffs’ farming on the said land.”

The Suit went for trial at the Benin Customary Court, upon its transfer to that court, at the end of which the Customary Court dismissed the Appellants’ case holding as it did that the Appellants (as Plaintiffs) “Failed to prove their case on the balance of probability.”

Dissatisfied with this dismissal, Appellants appealed to the High Court which appeal was heard by Akomolafe-Wilson J who in a considered Judgment dismissed same. Hence the present appeal.

By their amended Grounds of Appeal, Appellants complaints against the Judgment of the High Court are hinged on Eight Grounds. These Grounds without their particulars read:

”GROUND ONE

That the learned appellate Judge erred in law by not resolving the issues raised in some of the grounds of appeal by glossing over or ignoring them.

GROUND TWO

That the learned appellate Judge erred in law in affirming the finding of the trial court that the land is communal.

GROUND THREE

That the learned appellate Judge erred in law in failing to resolve the issues raised in some grounds of appeal which resolution would have led to the final decision in this case.

GROUND FOUR