A. Okosun Okpere V. Eboade Ehinebo & Anor. (1972)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

A. FATAYI-WILLIAMS, J.S.C. 

In the Uromi Customary Court in Suit No. 63/68, the plaintiff’s claim reads:-

“The plaintiff claims severally and jointly against the defendants:

(1) declaration of title to ownership of a piece of land valued at 370 situate at Ualokpere quarters in Eguare village along Ualokpere-Idumuague Road in Uromi.

(2) Injunction to restrain the defendants and their servants or agents from further trespass to the said land.

(3) 350 as damages for trespass therein.”

The plaintiff gave evidence in support of his claim to the following effect. The land in dispute situated at Ualor Okpere, in Eguare, Uromi, was originally owned by one Okpere (now deceased) the father of the plaintiff. During his lifetime, Okpere farmed on the land. Nobody disputed the land with him. After his death the land was divided among his children. This particular portion in dispute was the plaintiff’s share. Sometime in 1955, when he returned to his home at Uromi on leave, the plaintiff found the two defendants on the land.

They were cultivating economic crops such as cocoa, rubber, kolanuts and citrus trees there. One Agboma had also started a building on the land. The defendants when questioned begged to be allowed to stay on the land but the plaintiff refused and uprooted the crops. Agboma, who was building on the land was sued in suit No. 73/43/55 in Okhiode Group Court and judgment (exhibit A) was obtained against him. When the plaintiff returned home on leave again in 1957, he discovered that the two defendants as well as others had started building on part of the land in dispute.

As one Ogbebor was the chief instigator of the people disputing the land with him, the plaintiff’s family authorised his elder brother named Okpuje to sue Ogbebor for building on the land without permission. This second case (suit No. 618/57) was tried in the Uromi-Uzea Federal Court. The plaintiff’s family won the case as shown by the judgment (exhibit B) about which we will have more to say later.

One Okokpofi Egbehi (1st P/W), a member of the plaintiff’s family, was one of the two witnesses who gave evidence in support of his claim. His testimony is as follows:-

“I know both plaintiff and the defendants. Egbehi was my father. He virgined the land in dispute and other portions of the land left unvirgined by my grandfather Egbe. Okpere the first son of Egbehi virgined the remaining portion of the land untouched by Egbehi. It is a large portion of land which we are unable to use for farming all at once. Okpere family warned the defendants not to farm or plant economic crops on this land but they refused to heed the warning and continued to plant more.”

The 1st defendant also gave evidence. His defence, in short, was that the land in dispute was given to him by the late Chief Uwagbale, the Onoje of Uromi. This defence was confirmed by the 2nd defendant. In support of their case, the defendants called one Frederick Elabebolo (1st D.W.) who tendered another judgment of the Uromi-Uzea Federal Court (suit No. 337/58 delivered on 12th August, 1958) (exhibit G) in which judgment was given in respect of the same land in dispute for the defendants’ people by that court in an action brought by them against the plaintiff’s people. This same court, it will be recalled, had previously given judgment for the plaintiff’s family (the Ualor Okpere people) in respect of another piece of land situated between Idigie and Efandion in suit 618/57 (exhibit B). The defendants also called the present Onoje of Uromi, Chief Okoje II (3rd D.W.) who after testifying as to the traditional history of the land stated further as follows:-

“I was told by my father that the plaintiff had a land case before with the first defendant and that he supported the defendant in the case which the defendant won.”

In the majority judgment (which was the judgment of the court) delivered by two of the three-member court (Chief R. O. Etiobio and Mr. E. Eriakha) on 10th May, 1968, the plaintiff’s claim was dismissed. In dismissing the plaintiff’s claim, the court observed as follows:-