Boniface Nnorodim & Anor V. Eze Paul Ezeani & Ors (2001)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

BELGORE, J.S.C.

On 20th day of November, 2000 I dismissed this appeal and upheld the decision of Court of Appeal which ordered a retrial of the matter at the High Court. I now give my reasons. I also dismissed the cross-appeal.

The trial High Court made some positive findings in the case on the evidence before it. The case is more complicated than what the learned counsel for the appellants wanted to make it. The appellants claimed they made a grant of the disputed land to the local community, and there was matching grant by their adjacent land-owning family, for the purpose of a motor park. It later transpired in pleadings and evidence that the Local Government later acquired the garage compulsorily. There was no contest as to compensation but what seemed to irk the appellants is that the respondent community started erecting stores and permanent buildings on the land and had applied for Rights of Occupancy from the acquiring Council/Local Government. The Local Government by motion asked to be joined as defendant but the plaintiff/appellants opposed this and their objection was upheld by the trial Judge. The reasons advanced for the refusal by trial court to join the Local Government are not cogent enough. Though none of the parties questioned the decision in the appellate proceedings. But it seems to me that in view of the provisions in all procedural rules of High Courts in this country, if a party appears to be necessary as a third party so as to have a just decision in a suit, such third party can be joined. This joinder of the third party can be at the instance of the parties to the suit or at the instance of the third party, and at the instance of the court. The trial Judge finally dismissed the case for the plaintiff/appellants known as Anoro people. The reasons being that the Anora people were divested of their right over the disputed land once they had made a voluntary grant to the community. But other issues were left out undecided in this case as the trial court never adverted adequately to the plans exhibited. On appeal the Court of Appeal on consideration of all the issues found that the trial of other issues were not properly adverted by trial court and ordered a retrial. This court agrees with this decision which cannot be faulted. Both parties will at retrial be able to amend their pleadings and their plans to indicate clearly what they are claiming. Secondly, they may have a revisit to the refusal to join the Local Government which acquired the Motor Park allegedly covering the land in dispute. It is not possible for an appellate court in circumstances as in this case to believe or disbelieve any of the parties on matters not adverted to by trial court.

It is for the foregoing reasons that I on 20th day of October 2000 dismissed this appeal and upheld the decision of Court of Appeal which ordered retrial of the case. The cross-appeal has no merit and I dismissed it for the reasons given above.

I make no order as to costs.

SC.152/1995