Chief Marcus Ndoro & Ors V.ndeezia Pianwii & Ors (2002)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

AKPIROROH, J.C.A.

This is an appeal, against the judgment of Opene, J. (as he then was) of the High Court of Rivers State, sitting at Bori, delivered on the 25th day of March, 1993, in suits Nos. BHC/31/85 and BHC/15/87.

The appellants in suit No. BHC/31/85 claimed against the respondents as follows:-

  1. “A declaration that the plaintiffs are entitled to the customary rights of occupancy in over and in respect of the piece or parcel of land known as and called “Wii Kpobari” and situate at Nyokua- Okwali in Bori Local Government Area of the Rivers State and within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court.
  2. N10,000.00 damages for trespass.
  3. A perpetual injunction restraining the defendants, their servants or agents from further trespass on the said land or in any way interfering with the plaintiffs’ ownership and use of the said land.”

The respondents in suit No. BHC/15/87 claimed against the appellants as follows:-

“(1) Declaration that the plaintiffs are the people entitled to a right of occupancy by virtue of their holding from time out of human memory of that piece or parcel of land known as and called “Wii Kpobari” situate and lying at Nyokua, Okwali within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court. The said “Wii Kpobari” land as to its true position and boundaries will be shown in the plan to be filed later in court by the plaintiffs. The annual rental value of the land is not more than N500.00.

See also  Mathew Mbogu V. Adviser Shadrack (Now Amagbe) (2007) LLJR-CA

(2) N15,000.00 (Fifteen thousand Naira) being general damages for trespass in that in or about March, 1985, the defendant well knowing that the plaintiffs are the people entitled to a grant of certificate of occupancy of that parcel of land situate and lying at Wii Kpobari by himself, his servants, and/or agents and without the consent of the plaintiffs first obtaining broke and entered the said piece and parcel of land cleared the vast area destroying economic trees thereon, digging the land indiscriminately, farming portions and distributing other portions to people and committing several other acts of trespass over the said land.

(3) Injunction restraining the defendant by himself, his servants and/or agents from:-

(a) Continuing his acts of trespass,

(b) Ever setting his feet on the plaintiffs’ said land and/or

(c) Doing anything which challenges the rights to possession of the plaintiffs’ over the said land.”

For ease of trial, the two suits were consolidated.

The appellants’ case put briefly in the consolidated suit was that they are the owners of the land in dispute from time immemorial.

It was originally founded by their ancestor, Gbene-Abariwa who left Taaka village to Okwali to found Nyokua village, and was succeeded by Nwigbara Manze, Baridum, Akeke, Ndoro, Nabara and Marcus, the 1st appellant. All these persons and the entire Nyokua community exercised maximum acts of ownership in respect of the land which remained a community land. Sometimes during the reign of Chief Akeke, there were some fights between the neighbouring villages of Luebe, Lueku and Sogho over the land in dispute which the appellants won and re-established their ownership of the land. After this, Chief Ndoro shared portions of the land in dispute to various families and individuals who took part in the prosecution of the wars for their cultivation while the radical title of the land remained communal land.

See also  Femi Ikuomola V. Alhaji Ganiyu Alani Ige & Ors. (1992) LLJR-CA

Later, the defendant’s father migrated to Nyokua from Nuagha, Sogho and settled at Nyokua where he was taken as a servant by Ndoro and later married Ndoro’s sister, Mmue, who begat the 1st defendant. Chief Ndoro gave the defendant’s father a piece of land around the land in dispute for farming as long as their marriage subsisted. In 1982, a construction company (Dumez) dug a burrow pit on part of the land in dispute for which the community and the people whose crops were destroyed were paid compensations. In 1994, the defendants went into the land and forcibly cultivated it despite the plaintiffs’ protests and warnings hence this action.

Membership Required

You must be a member to access this content.

View Membership Levels

Already a member? Log in here

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *