Akaazua Muemue V. Kulugh Gaji & Anor (2000)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

CHUKWUMA-ENEH, J.C.A.

This appeal is against the judgment of the Katsina Ala High Court of Benue State sitting in its appellate jurisdiction delivered on 16th April, 1992, wherefore the decision and orders of the trial Upper Area Court, Vandeikya were set aside and in their place was entered an order striking out the suit filed by the plaintiff (i.e. the appellant in this court).

For purposes of grasping the issues for consideration in this appeal it will be helpful to have recourse to the excerpt of the trial Upper Area Court’s decision as could from the judgment of the appellate High Court that sat on appeal over that decision. It reads thus:

“The defendants (now appellants) were in consequence restrained from trespassing or further trespassing of the disputed land. They shall hand over the possession of the land to the original owners; the court having found them (appellants) to be licensees of the plaintiff/respondent and they had misbehaved themselves by challenging the authority of their overlords”.

Against that decision the respondents before this court appealed to the High Court Katsina-Ala whose decision is now on appeal before us.

The appellant (as plaintiff in the trial Upper Area Court) sought in his claim for the following reliefs:

“(1) A declaration of title to a piece or parcel of farmland lying and situate at Mbaajo of Mbashumba in Mbera District of Vandeikya Local Government of Benue State.

(2) An injunction perpetually restraining the defendants by themselves, their agents, privies, servants or others whomsoever from trespassing in whatever form on the said land.”

It is important to note that the respondents (i.e. the defendants in the trial court) filed a cross-action against the appellant here i.e. the plaintiff at the trial in the same Upper Area Court claiming a declaration of title to the same parcel of land situate and lying in Mbawior in Vandeikya Local Government of Benue State.

Nothing much is said of this matter in the briefs of argument of the parties except that the trial Upper Area Court dismissed the action. The respondents have so far not appealed against the decision.

The facts of this case as gathered from the evidence of the parties are a bit complicated. The plaintiff brought this action in a representative capacity for himself and on behalf of Muemue family. He told the trial Court that one Muemue Akwatomo his father was the founder of the land in dispute. He lived and died on the said land in dispute. The respondent’s father was brought to the land by Ihom Anshungu, appellant’s uncle to be treated of sores or boils that covered his body. The respondent’s father was there allotted land to farm. This action was taken out because the respondents have started to lay claim to the land in dispute and thus have prevented the appellant from exercising his right to farm the land. Also because the respondent have attempted to survey the land with a view to using it to obtain a Certificate of Occupancy. He also said the respondent came from another kindred of Mbawuar called Mbaiwuar and prayed the court that they be sent back from whence they came and hand over the land in dispute to the appellant.

The respondents who were cousins claimed that the land in dispute descended to them by inheritance from their father. They brought a cross-action against the appellant and they told the trial court that their father one Zar Alias Gaji Dumgbe was the founder of the land and that in his life time he exercised all manner of acts of ownership including farming the land, planted trees. They denied that they were licensees on the disputed land. They asserted they exercised their acts of ownership without paying any tributes and that the appellant’s uncle, Ihom sued them in respect of an adjoining land and lost. And that the case was the genesis of this case.

The trial Upper Area Court conducted a locus in quo and gave a considered judgment in the terms of the order as quoted above. The appellate High Court set aside the decision of the Trial Upper Area Court and struck out the suit as being statute-barred.

Against the said decision the appellants have appealed to this court and have outlined their complaints against the decision under 7 (seven) grounds of appeal; they are reproduced without particulars as follows:-