Chukwudi Nnalimuo & 3 Ors Vs Sunday Elodumuo & 2 Ors (2018)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

AMINA ADAMU AUGIE, J.S.C.

By a Writ of Summons issued at the Onitsha Judicial Division of High Court of East Central State of the Federation in July 1971, the Respondents, who were the Plaintiffs, claimed as follows –

(a) Declaration of title to all that piece or parcel of land known and called “UZO lRU” situate at Oraifite – –

(b) 100 [Pounds] being damages for trespass.

(c) Perpetual Injunction restraining the Defendant, their servants and agents from further acts of trespass on the said land.

At the trial, the Respondents called eight witnesses. They relied upon traditional evidence, acts of ownership and possession and the ownership of adjacent lands in support of their said claims.

The Appellants, who were Defendants, called six Witnesses. They also claimed that the land belongs to them, however, they did not file any counter-claim in respect of the land in dispute.

In his Judgment of 19/7/1997, the learned trial Judge, Keazor, J., found the traditional history of the Respondents more reliable than that of the Appellants, and concluded as follows –

1

Placed side by side with each other, the evidence of the Plaintiffs definitely tells the balance on the imaginary scale in favour of the plaintiff. I hold that they have proved their case.

Dissatisfied, the Appellants appealed to the Court of Appeal and from the Grounds of Appeal filed, they formulated eleven Issues for Determination. The Respondents formulated seven Issues, and submitted further that the “Appellants’ Issues 3-8 does not arise from Ground 12 or any other Ground”; furthermore, that –

Appellants’ Issues 3-9 and 3-10 are co-related within Ground 13, which complained that the learned trial judge failed to make definite and categorical finding that the Plaintiffs failed to prove acts of possession or ownership of adjacent lands as claimed by them. Accordingly, said Issues 3-9 and 3-10 are moot and academic, as those aggrieved thereby are the Plaintiffs, not the Appellants, who had not suffered any prejudice – – – It is the Plaintiffs, who ought to complain and appeal and not the Defendants/Appellants.

In its judgment delivered on 12/5/2003, the Court of Appeal held that Appellants Issue 8 does not arise from Ground 12, and struck out the said Issue with all

2