Christopher Anodebe & Ors V. Clement Obodo & Ors (2016)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

EMMANUEL AKOMAYE AGIM, J.C.A. 

On 1-12-1988, the respondents herein as plaintiffs filed a claim and caused the issuance of a writ of summons on the same day in the High Court of Anambra State at Amawbia/Awka Judicial Division commencing Suit AA/173/88 against the appellants as defendants.

The plaintiffs claimed for-
(a) A declaration that they are entitled to customary right of occupancy of the piece or parcel of land known as and called “Ugwu Aro” situate at Umudunu, Abagana.
(b) 50,000.00 damages for trespass committed on the said land on the 7th of April, 1988
(c) Injunction restraining the defendants, their servants, agents and privies from further trespass on the land.

The case was tried on the basis of the following pleadings 3rd further amended statement of claim and 4th further amended statement of defence.

The plaintiffs adduced evidence through 5 witnesses in support of his claim. The defendants adduced evidence through 6 witnesses to rebut the plaintiffs’ case.

Following conclusion of evidence by both sides and after the filing, exchange and adoption of the written addresses, the

1

trial Court on 26-10-2009 rendered judgment granting all the reliefs claimed for by the plaintiffs.

Dissatisfied with this judgment the defendants, on 3-8-2011 commenced this appeal No.CA/E/205/2012 by filing a notice of appeal containing 6 grounds for the appeal. In the same notice, it is stated that the appeal is also against the ruling of the trial Court delivered on 24-10-2008.

Both sides have filed, exchanged and adopted their respective briefs of argument as follows- appellants’ brief and respondents’ brief.
?
The appellants’ brief raised the following issues for determination-
1. Whether the learned trial judge was right to have dismissed the application of the appellants to amend their 4th further Amended Statement of Defence to incorporate their counter-claim on the basis that it was too late and will be prejudicial to the respondents?
2. Whether the learned trial judge erred in law when he held that the admission of the defendants that the plaintiff took an oath for the Ezumbe family, which DW2 accepted under cross-examination that the 3rd plaintiff was one of the people that took the oath has discharged the burden on the

2

plaintiffs.
3. Whether the learned trial judge did not misdirect himself when he held that the second oath taking is a clear admission by the appellants of the respondents’ acts of ownership and possession of the land in dispute?
4 Whether the learned trial judge was right in law when it considered and evaluated only the case of the respondents and failed to properly consider and evaluate or to consider and evaluate at all, the evidence of the appellants and their witnesses on very vital issues before it and this has led to a perverse decision and occasioned a miscarriage of justice?
?
The respondents’ brief raised the following issues for determination-.
1. Whether the Lower Court exercised its discretion judiciously and judicially in respect of the appellants’ motion for amendment. Ground 1
2. Whether the respondents established their title to the land in dispute by any of the recognized ways of proving title.
Grounds 2-6

The two issues for determination couched in the respondents’ brief cover all the issues raised in the appellants’ brief. I prefer to determine this appeal on the basis of the said two issues in the

3