Chief Uriah Akpana Adomba & Ors. V. Benjamin Odiese & Ors (1990)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

NNAEMEKA-AGU, J.S.C. 

This is an appeal by the plaintiffs against the judgment of the Court of Appeal, Enugu Division. That court had allowed an appeal by the defendants against the judgment of Wai Ogosu, J., sitting in a Portharcourt High Court.

The claim before the High Court was for the following reliefs:
“(1) A declaration that they, as persons adjudged in 2 Oloibiri native court suits nos. 17/58 and 18/58 owners and/or owners in possession of the land known as “EDUMATO-EMENI” alias “EDUMANYO”, are entitled to

(a) all monies due from and payable by 2nd defendants as compensation for 2nd defendant’s user, structures, loss of fishing rights and/or occupation of, and their operations on and/or in EDUMATO-EMENI land aforesaid; and
(b) All monies and/or sums due from and payable by the 2nd defendant in respect of plaintiff’s communally owned economic trees growing on the said land which were destroyed by the 2nd defendants.

(2) An order that the sum of N143,234.28 deposited by the 2nd defendants with the accountant-general, Rivers State, or any sum or larger sum due from and payable by the 2nd defendants as claimed in 1(a) and (b) above be paid over to the plaintiffs.

(3) Perpetual Injunction against 2nd defendants, their servants and/or agents paying any monies as claimed by plaintiffs in 1 and 2 above to any person or persons other than the plaintiffs.”

The main plank in the plaintiff’s case, as can be seen from their amended statement of claim dated the 28th day of August, 1978, is that, they were already, as against the 1st set of defendants, adjudged owners in possession of the “Edumato-Emeni”, alias “Edumanyo” land in dispute as shown in plan no. exh. “N” (i.e. in Oloibiri native court suits nos. 17/1958 (exh. “U”) and 18/1958 (exh. “V”)) in which the 2nd set of defendants “Nimbe A Location” lies.

So, they are entitled to the compensation of the sum of N143,234.28 due for the acquisition of the location by the 2nd set of defendants. Furthermore, they pleaded the traditional history of the entire land verged green in exh. “N” which, according to them was founded by their ancestor, Agbor, who was after his death succeeded by his son, Emeni, from whom the plaintiff’s family took its name, and then by the plaintiffs. They further alleged that it was the same piece or parcel of land which the defendants had sued for in the High Court suit No.P/57/58 (exhs. J, J1-J5) which action they did not prosecute and so it was struck out for want of prosecution.

Also, the plaintiffs pleaded other acts of possession and ownership which they exercised over the land in dispute. These included prosecuting certain trespassing members of the defendant’s community in the Magistrate Court case no. D/395C/1965 (exh. C). They were all convicted and the conviction was confirmed by the High Court. Some members of the plaintiff’s kith and kin also prosecuted actions against some members of the defendant’s community in Oloibiri native court suits nos. 162/57, 163/57,199/57 and 201/57 over portions of the land in dispute.

In the 1st set of defendant’s amended statement of defence dated the 1st day of August, 1979, they claimed to be the owners in possession of the land in dispute and joined issues with the plaintiffs on each of the above averments. In particular, they vigorously denied that suit nos. 17/1958 and 18/1958 were fought over any part of the land in dispute. In any event, those judgments were obtained by the plaintiffs in default of the defendant’s appearance and attempts by the defendants to appeal against them were forestalled by the registrar of the native court through the instrumentality of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs, they averred, live several hundred kilometres away from the land in dispute.

The defendants were in possession of the land in dispute and were so found by the 2nd set of defendants when they entered the “Nimbe A Location” (to be hereinafter referred to as the location). As a result, the 2nd set of defendants made interim payments of compensation to them and agreed with them on the quantum of compensation for the location long before the plaintiffs came on the scene hence, the compensation was deposited with the accountant general.

They pleaded that the conviction of some of their people in D/395C/1965 was set aside by the Biafran Court of Appeal and both sides have since then respected the judgment. The land in dispute, called “Edem Ebela” or Ebila-Piri” as shown in defendant’s plan, exh. T, is the exclusive property of the defendants. They denied the other native court’s suits pleaded by the plaintiffs. They too, pleaded that in Nembe native xcourt suit no. 355/5 of 1915, the 1st set of defendants had judgment against the plaintiffs. Also in suit No. 273/28 in the same court, the defendants were found to be in possession of the land. They also pleaded other acts of long possession and ownership from time immemorial.

In his judgment, the learned trial Judge held that for the plaintiffs to succeed in the present suit, it is their duty to prove that the lands involved in the Oloibiri native court suits no 17/1958 and 18/1958 (exhs. U and V) are the same with the land in dispute in the court suit no. P/57/58. Relying almost exclusively on the plan and pleadings in the High Court suit, which had been tendered as exhs. J3-J5, he found that the land in dispute in the instant case includes the areas litigated upon in exhs. “U” and “V”.

He regarded the criminal proceedings, exh. “C” as an act of possession. He also came to the conclusion that the defendants had set up conflicting defences on exh. “U” and “V” in that with one breath they attacked them as invalid, but in another, they contended that they relate to other lands. He did not think much of those defences. On the whole, he concluded that as the native court had in exhs. “V” and “U” awarded to the plaintiffs the land in dispute, they were entitled to succeed in this suit.