Chief Gibson Pencyl Orunengimo & Anor. V. Madam Margaret Egebe & Ors. (2002)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

OGEBE, J.C.A. 

The appellants sued the respondents in the High Court Degema, for a declaration of title to the disputed land. The appellants filed a statement of claim and the respondents concluded their pleadings with an amended statement of defence.

The appellants’ case was that the land in dispute, was owned by Ikoni family to which they belonged. The land was originally owned by the founder of Okoroma village and it was inherited by their ancestors, through Arose up to Pencyl. On the death of Pencyl, they became the present owners of the land. It was also their case that Arose had a half brother, who was of the same mother but different father. He was not a member of Ikoni family. The name of the brother is Kanti Inogha. Kanti had a friend called Donald Egebe, who was the father of the respondents. Through the plea of Kanti, Arose permitted Egebe to settle on the portion of the disputed land on temporary basis only. Shell Petroleum Development Company (Nigeria) Ltd, came into the disputed land to carry out oil exploration activities and the respondents asserted ownership of the land before the company. The appellants then instituted the action.

The respondents’ case in the lower court was that their father, Donald Egebe wanted to buy a piece of land. One George Oruh, introduced him to Kanti Inogha, who sold him the disputed piece of land. It was their case that Arose, the appellants’ grandmother was a member of Egbule family of Kanti and took part in selling the disputed land. The matter was hotly contested before the lower court.

Six witnesses testified for the appellants, while four testified for the respondents at the court below. After extensive review of the facts presented by both sides the learned trial Judge dismissed the appellants’ claim.

Aggrieved by that decision, the appellants appealed to this court and the learned Counsel for them filed a brief of argument which was later amended with the following issues for determination:

(a) Whether it was right for the lower court to make holdings or findings in favour of the defendants on matters Which the defendants did not raise as part of their defence?

(b) Whether it is correct for the lower court to give Judgment to the defendants based upon findings, which

are the exact opposite of the pleadings and evidence of the defendants, and upon matters which the defendants never raised as part of their defence in both their pleadings and evidence.

(c) Whether the plaintiffs did prove their claim of ownership to the disputed land by credible evidence?

The respondents also filed a brief of argument, which was later amended and formulated three issues for determination as follows:

(1) Whether on the pleadings, evidence and circumstances of this case, the lower court was justified in its findings and conclusion that the appellants are members of Kanti family and that the appellants having represented themselves as such are not estopped from asserting otherwise.

(2) Whether on the pleadings, evidence and circumstances of this case, the lower court was justified in upholding the respondents’ claim that their ancestor, Donald Egebe bought the land in dispute from the appellants’ ancestor.

(3) Whether on the pleadings, evidence and circumstances of this case, the lower court was justified in its conclusion that the appellants have failed to discharge the burden of proof cast upon them by the law, that is, title to the land verged Red in exhibit 1″