Adaku Amadi V. Edward N. Nwosu (1992)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

L. KUTIGI, J.S.C. 

I dismissed this appeal on the 6th day of April, 1992 after hearing counsel on the single ground of appeal he argued before this Court without calling on respondent’s counsel and now give my reasons.

The plaintiff who is now the respondent claimed in the Owerri High Court against the defendant who is appellant in this appeal as follows:

“(a) A declaration that the plaintiff having purchased the buildings situate at and known as No. 179 Tetlow Road, Owerri from the former owner Mr Godfrey F.A. Amadi and having obtained a statutory Certificate of Occupancy in relation to the said property registered as No.50 at page 50 in Volume 86 of the Lands Registry in the Office at Owerri is entitled to the physical possession of the said 179 Tetlow Road, Owerri without any molestation from any quarters whatsoever.

(b) A declaration that the defendant by wrongfully claiming as at 18/5/81 to be the owner of the said 179 Tetlow Road, Owerri after being earlier on informed of the transfer by sale of the ownership of same by the true and original owner to the plaintiff and by refusing to vacate the premises when asked to do so, and not being a tenant, is as from the date of such wrongful claim a trespasser.

(c) N200.00 (Two Hundred Naira) being general damages for trespass in that on or about 18/5/81 and continuing the defendant by herself, her agents and servants occupied the plaintiff’s house at 179 Tetlow Road, Owerri without the consent or permission of the plaintiff.

(d) A perpetual injunction restraining the defendant by herself and/or her servants or agents from further interfering with the plaintiff’s rights of occupancy in and over the said No. 179 Tetlow Road, Owerri.”

Pleadings were filed and exchanged. The trial proceeded before Chianakwalam I. and judgment was duly delivered by him in favour of the respondent. The appellant was dissatisfied with the judgment of the trial court and so she appealed to the Court of Appeal where her appeal was dismissed. Still dissatisfied she has now appealed to this Court.

The respondent’s case as pleaded in his Amended Statement of Claim was briefly that he purchased the property and premises in dispute known as No. 179 Tetlow Road, Owerri, from its owner, one Godfrey F.A. Amadi for the sum of N140,000.00, Godfrey F.A. Amadi is or was the husband of the appellant herein and he testified for the respondent at the trial as P.W.1. The respondent traced his root of title to the said Godfrey Amadi and tendered a number of documents which included among others. The power of Attorney (Exh. A) and a Deed of Assignment (Exh.D) in respect of the property. Godfrey, the Vendor, in his evidence confirmed the testimony of the respondent. He also gave cogent testimony of how he came to own the property in question through partition of family land and later developed it by erecting a building thereon. According to Godfrey after he had sold the property to the respondent, he used the money to develop another land at No.33 Anokwu Street where he now lives. He said when he requested the appellant to move to the new building with him she bluntly refused and forcibly continued to occupy the property in dispute.

The appellant on the other hand claimed that the property in dispute was family property allocated to her husband, Godfrey. F.A. Amadi, herself and their children. She also claimed to have contributed labour and sand to the building of the property and that she owned it jointly with Godfrey, her husband (P.W.1).

In a reserved judgment the learned trial judge after evaluating the evidence and making findings of facts on the issues raised before him entered judgment for the respondent.

In the Court of Appeal the following three questions were posed by the appellant for determination –

1. Whether upon the pleadings and evidence led the trial Judge was right in holding that the plaintiff/respondent proved his case and gave judgment for him.
2. Whether the learned trial Judge was right when he held that the defendant/appellant did not make any contribution towards the erection of the building.
3. Whether the learned trial Judge was right when he held that the defendant/appellant and her children have no interest in the land which is the subject matter of the action in that the land was shared before the marriage between the plaintiff witness No. 1 and the defendant/appellant.

The Court of Appeal considered all the above issues and dismissed the appeal.

On behalf of the appellant only three grounds of appeal were filed. Grounds 2 & 3 were struck out by this Court on 20/11/89.