Chief Ohia Chukwu & Ors. V. John Amadi & Ors. (2011)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

MUSA DATTIJO MUHAMMAD, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading judgment)

This is an appeal against the judgment of the Rivers state High Court in a consolidated matter comprising suit No.PHC/490/2000 and suit No. PHC/707/2000, delivered on 19th November, 2007. Very briefly, the facts of the case that led to the appeal are:

The Appellants who were the plaintiffs in suit No. PHC/490/2000 claimed against the 1st and 2nd sets of Respondents being the defendants as follows:

“1. A Declaration that the customary right of occupancy over and in respect of all that piece and parcel of land comprised in the entire area of land known as and called Otuloro Wosu in Rumuodara, Obio/Akpor within the jurisdiction of this Honourable court, vests in the plaintiffs.

2. A declaration that the attempt by the 1st set of defendants at purchasing part of the piece or parcel of land from the plaintiffs in 1977 having failed, the 1st set of Defendants could nor acquire any title over the whole or any part thereof to pass to anybody including the 2nd and 3rd sets of defendants.
3. N50.000.00 damages for trespass.

4.Injunction restraining the defendants from further trespassing on the said piece of land.”

The 1st and 2nd sets of Defendants/Respondents filed their respective statements of Defence and counter claims.

suit No. PHC/709/2000 had also been commenced by the 2nd set of Respondents against the Appellants and the 1st set of Respondents claiming declaration to stay jointly against the two declaration of entitlement in respect of two parcels of land measuring 4078.87 and 2024.81 meters respectively and situate in Otuloro Wosu Land in Rumuodara community, Obio/Akpor Local Government Area of Rivers State within the jurisdiction of this Honourable court.

The Appellant neither filed any defence to the counter claim of the two sets of defendants nor the cross action of the 2nd set of Respondent.

Following the consolidation of both suits, the Appellants herein became the plaintiffs with the respondents as the 1st, 2nd and 3rd sets of defendants. The appeal against the 3rd set of respondents having been discontinued, their names were struck out from the appeal.

Plaintiffs’ case in the consolidated suit is that the land in dispute, Ohia Otuloro Wosu, is owned by the two family units who, from time immemorial, have been exercising maximum acts of ownership and possession over the land.

They farmed and harvested oil palm fruits on the land. Sometime in 1977, the 1st set of defendants being in need of farm land approached the plaintiff’s family elders. Unable to offer reasonable price for the purchase of the land, they made an advance payment of N1,400.00 pleading that they be allowed to rent the land for farming purposes on yearly basis. They were however issued with a purchase receipt dated 3rd April 1977. It is the claimant’s further case that the 1st set of defendant’s are neither members of their family nor own any part of the land in dispute. None of the two family units, Rumuchukwu and Rumuokeke, had any dealing separate from the transaction elders of the family had with the 1st set of defendants.

The first witness called by the Appellants stopped coming to count after he had partly testified. The witness was never cross-examined. His testimony was for that reason expunged. The only witness that testified fully for the plaintiffs did so in complete consonance with their pleadings. He told the court that the 1st set of defendants approached the plaintiffs’ family through one late Thompson Weli wanting to rent land for farming purposes. They paid N1,400 for which they were issued receipt on 3/4/1977. The land was neither sold to the 1st set of defendants by the elders nor was the meeting of the entire family ever held to discuss any sale to them. Plaintiffs were unable to produce more witnesses. They had their case foreclosed.

The 1st set of defendants in suit No. PHC/490/2000 denied the plaintiffs claim. They also counterclaimed. Their case is that they bought two parcels of land form the Rumuchukwu and Rumuokeke families for which they paid a deposit of N1,400 on 3/4/77 and a further payment of the sum of N4000 on 14/6/77. On each occasion they made the payments, they were issued a purchase receipt. Subsequently, having paid the agreed price, they signed two

deeds of conveyance and took possession of the parcels of land. They insist that the land was out rightly purchased from the plaintiffs and that they acquired the right to deal with the land as they wished. They urged the court to so declare and to award them two million naira damages against the plaintiffs who had portrayed them as fraudulent. They asked that the plaintiffs be restrained as well.