Chief G. N. Okoye V. Mr. Frank Tobechukwu (2016) LLJR-CA

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

MISITURA OMODERE BOLAJI-YUSUFF, J.C.A.

The respondent as the plaintiff instituted suit no. O/138/2005 in the High Court of Anambra State holden at Onitsha wherein he claimed the following reliefs against the appellant in his Further Amended Statement of claim filed on 9/7/07:
a. ?A declaration that the plaintiff is the person entitled to the said low density, Plot No. 24 Block 11 Site B, Site and Services Scheme Trans Nkisi Onitsha Anambra State.
b. N5, 000,000.00 (Five Million Naira) damages for trespass.
c. Perpetual injunction restraining the defendant, the agents, privies, cohorts and workmen from trespassing or further trespassing on the said low density Plot 24 Block 11 Site B, Site and Services Scheme Trans Nkisi Onitsha or in any other manner disturbing or interfering with the plaintiffs possession of the said land.?

The respondent?s case is that he applied to the Federal Ministry of Works and Housing for allocation of land. Pursuant to his application, Plot No. 24 Block 11 Site B, Site and Services Scheme, Trans Nkisi, Onitsha was allocated to him by the said Federal Ministry of

1

Works and Housing. He accepted the allocation, paid the requisite fees and obtained an approval for the building to be constructed on the land. In September, 2004, the appellant trespassed on the said land by depositing sand and stone on the land.

The appellant as the defendant contended that the land which the respondent referred to as plot 24 Block 11 Site B, Site and Services Scheme Trans Nkisi Onitsha is Plot 448 Block XV111, Federal Ministry of Works Scheme. According to the appellant, the alleged site B was invented by some unscrupulous staff of the Federal Ministry of Works and Housing. Most importantly, the appellant pleaded that he is not the allottee of plot 448 Block XV111 which the respondent is claiming as plot 24 Block 11 Site B. He asserted that there is no person called Frank Tobechukwu, the name was invented to circumvent the law and embark on multiple allocations which the law forbids.

The respondent called three witnesses. The appellant testified as DW1 and called no other witness. In a considered judgment delivered by Honourable Justice V. N. Agbata sitting at the High Court of Anambra State, Onitsha Judicial Division on 20th

2

April, 2009, judgment was entered in favour of the respondent as follows:
?I, therefore, consider the case of the plaintiff as being meritorious. The plaintiff is therefore, the person entitled to the statutory right of occupancy over the piece or parcel of land known as plot No. 24, Block 11, Site B of the Sites and Services Scheme, Trans Nkisi layout, Onitsha, more particularly delineated shown verged red in the plaintiff?s plan No. CE (A)/LD 006/2006, Exhibit P9. The defendant, his agents, and/or servants are, therefore, hereby restrained from further trespass on the land aforesaid. No order as to costs.?

Dissatisfied with the above judgment, the appellant has appealed to this Court on 8 Grounds of appeal which are reproduced below without their particulars:
GROUND I: ERROR IN LAW
?The learned trial judge erred in law and occassioned a gross miscarriage of justice when he failed to consider any of the documents tendered by both parties and admitted in evidence in the suit.
GROUND II: MISDIRECTION IN LAW
The learned trial judge misdirected himself in law and came to a wrong decision which occassioned

3

a gross miscarriage of justice when he failed to consider, evaluate or make a finding of facts on the contents of the bundle of document admitted as Exhibit D3.
GROUND III: MISDIRECTION
The learned trial judge misdirected himself in law and came to a wrong decision which occassioned a gross miscarriage of justice when he held as follows:
?At the end of the respective cases for the parties both counsel addressed the Court extensively, I have carefully considered the pleadings of the parties together with the evidence adduced with rapt attention the submissions of the counsel with respect thereof (sic). The issue in controversy in this suit, seems to me to be, as between the plaintiff and the defendant who is the rightful allottee of the disputed portion of land.?
GROUND IV: ERROR IN LAW
The learned trial judge erred in law and came to a wrong decision when he totally failed to consider and determine any of the issues raised by both parties to the suit as the issues for determination.
GROUND V: ERROR IN LAW
The learned trial judge erred in law and came to a wrong decision when he held that the Plaintiff/Respondent

4

was entitled to the statutory right of occupancy over the plot of land in dispute without resolving whether the Plaintiff/Respondent had sued the proper party in this suit.
GROUND VI: ERROR IN LAW
?The learned trial judge erred in law and came to a wrong decision which occassioned a gross miscarriage of justice when he held thus:
?In my most humble opinion the above cannot by any stretch of imagination, be considered a defence to the formidable case which was made out by the Plaintiff, since the Defendant has admitted, that the land in dispute does not belong to him, he has nothing to lose if the Court declares the Plaintiff the owner thereof.?
GROUND VII: ERROR IN LAW
The learned trial judge erred in law and came to a wrong decision, which occassioned a gross miscarriage of justice when he held that it is none of the business of the Defendant if the Plaintiff had applied for the land with a Pseudo name.
GROUND VIII:
The judgment is against the weight of evidence.?