Aaron Okarika & Ors. V. Isaiah Samuel & Anor (2013)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

IBRAHIM TANKO MUHAMMAD, J.S.C.

The Suits between the parties before the High Court sitting in the Ahoada Judicial Division of the High Court of Rivers State (trial court) were between the same parties. The Suits were numbered AHC/12/82 and AHC/17/82. They were later consolidated. In AHC/12/82, the Plaintiffs’ therein, who are the Respondents’ herein, commenced their action against the Defendants, who are now Appellants’ herein. The Plaintiffs’ asked for the following reliefs:

1. “A declaration to the customary rights of occupancy of a piece or parcel of land situate at OBOBURU town in AHOADA Local Government Area known as and called “MBIDE LAND.”
2. N5,000.00, being general damages for trespass in that the Defendants’ wrongfully and unlawfully broke into and entered into the said “MBIDE LAND” which is and has been in the actual and lawful possession of the Plaintiffs’, destroying trees and planting building pegs.
3. A perpetual injunction restraining the Defendants, their agents or servants from further acts of trespass, entering or interfering with same.”

In Suit No.AHC/17/82 the Defendants’/Appellants’ sued the Plaintiffs’/Respondents, claiming the following reliefs:

1. “A declaration that the Appellants’ are entitled to the customary right of occupancy over the piece or parcel of land situate at OBOBURU town in the AHOADA Local Government Area known as IBEWA – UZOR LAND.
2. N7,000.00 (Seven Thousand Naira) as general damages for trespass in that the Respondents’ wrongfully and unlawfully broke and entered into the said Ibewa-Uzor land in the lawful possession of the Appellants’.
3. A perpetual injunction restraining the Respondents, their servants and agents from further acts of trespass upon the said land.”

At the end of the proceedings, the learned trial Judge made findings of facts that the Plaintiffs’ had adduced cogent evidence of traditional history pointing to the root of their title and entitlement to the right of occupancy to MBIDE land. The Defendants, on the other hand, according to the learned trial Judge, had failed woefully to show with certainty the area of UBEWUZOR land within the wider OBE land to which their claims related. The learned trial Judge held that the claim in Suit No.AHC/12/82 succeeded and he granted the Plaintiffs’ all the reliefs sought. The claim in Suit No.AHC/17/82 in which the Defendants’ were Plaintiffs’ failed and was dismissed. The trial Court’s Judgment was affirmed.

Further appeal was filed to this Court by the Appellants’. Briefs of argument were settled by the parties to the appeal. The learned Counsel for the Appellants’ formulated the following issues for determination by this Court:

“ISSUE 1

Whether upon a calm and reflective consideration of the traditional history pleaded by the Respondents’ and the evidence led thereon, the Court of Appeal was right in affirming the Judgment of the trial Court granting them title to the disputed land (Gd. 3).

ISSUE 2

Whether the Court of Appeal was right in affirming the Judgment of the trial Court dismissing the Appellants’ claim for a declaration of title to the disputed land. (Gds. 1, 2, 4 and 5).”

Learned Counsel for the Respondents’ set out in their brief of argument the following issues for determination. Viz:

“ISSUE 1

Whether having regards to the Notice of Appeal, the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to hear this Appeal.

ISSUE 2

Whether having regards to the pleadings and evidence proffered by the parties as to their traditional history, the Court of Appeal was right in affirming the Judgment of the trial Court.