Chief Cyriacus Obiangwu V. Chief John Nwosu & Ors (2015)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

FREDERICK OZIAKPONO OHO, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

In the Customary Court of Orlu Local Government Area of Imo State Holden at Ihuoma, Judgment was delivered on the 3rd of February, 2009 in Suit No. CC/OU/48/98 in favour of the Plaintiffs/Appellants who claimed against the Defendants/Respondents the following:

(a) A Declaration for the Honourable Court that the Plaintiffs are entitled to Customary Right of Occupancy covering the piece or parcel of land known as and called ALA NTUNAJI? situate as Umudibie Ebenese Ihuoma Town within Jurisdiction.

(b) N2,000.00 (Two-Thousand Naira) as special and general damages for trespass.

(c) AN Order of Perpetual injunction restraining the Defendants by themselves, their servants, workmen, agents and privies from further trespassing on the said ALA NTUNAJI Land.

The matter was fully heard by the trial Customary Court with both sides calling witnesses in support of their respective cases. At the conclusion of trial the trial Customary Court on the 30-6-2008 held in favour of the Plaintiffs as follows;

1. The Plaintiffs are entitled to

the Customary right of Occupancy of the Land called and known as ALA NTUNAJI situate at Umudibie Ebenese Ihuoma Town within Jurisdiction.

2. N50,000.00 (Fifty-thousand Naira) damages for trespass.
3. Perpetual Injunction restraining the defendants by themselves, their servants, workmen, agents and privies from further trespassing on the said ALA NTUNAJI Land.

An ancillary cost of N5000.00 (Five-Thousand Naira) was further awarded to the Plaintiffs as cost of prosecuting the matter and other expenses.

Dissatisfied with the trial Customary Courts judgment of the 30-6-2008, the Defendants appealed to the Customary Court of Appeal, sitting at Owerri vide a Notice of Appeal dated 13th July, 2008 containing six (6) grounds which are reproduced without their particulars as follows;

GROUNDS:

(1) The trial Customary Court lacked the jurisdiction to determine this suit by only the Chairman of the Court.

(2) The Customary Court erred in law Customary Law by holding thus: Exhibit G implies a de facto recognition by the I.P.M. that the Plaintiffs own the land in dispute.

(3) The

trial Customary Court erred in Customary law by concluding thus: ? the argument of the defense about the discredit of the traditional history on the Grounds that Ebenese is not a human being?. This argument is not tenable. The humanity or otherwise of Ebenese is immaterial to the issue in controversy.