Clement Okonkwo & Ors V. Ichie Peter Nwude Okafor & Ors (2016)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

MASSOUD ABDULRAHMAN OREDOLA, J.C.A.

This is an appeal against the judgment of the Anambra State High Court, sitting in Awka (hereinafter referred to as the Lower Court), delivered by Hon. Justice M. I. Onochie, J. on the 10th day of September, 2009. The appellants were the defendants at the Lower Court and the respondents were the plaintiffs. The respondents in their statement of claim filed on the 3rd day of February, 2006 claimed against the appellants jointly and severally the following reliefs:
?(a) A declaration that the plaintiffs are entitled to the grant of a statutory right of occupancy over the parcel of land variously known as ?Ana Isi,? Obu Enika? or ?Okpuno Enika?, situate at Nkpu Odupa, Ifite Village, Enugwu Agidi and shown verged green in survey plan number AC/LD. 27/2005.
(b) N100,000.00 being damages for trespass.
(c) Injunction restraining the defendants by themselves or through their servants, workers, agents or in any manner howsoever from interfering with the plaintiff?s ownership and possession of the said land.?

1

The parties duly filed and exchanged pleadings and the suit was heard on the state of pleadings. The respondents led evidence whereby they called two (2) witnesses; while the appellants followed suit and called five (5) witnesses. At the end of it all, the Lower Court entered judgment in favour of the respondents in the following terms:
?In conclusion, I hold that the plaintiffs? claim succeeds and I make the following orders:
(i) I hereby declare that the plaintiffs are the persons entitled to the right of occupancy over all that piece and parcel of land shown verged green in plaintiffs? survey plan No. AC/LD27/2007 prepared by A. S. C. Anaebonam, registered surveyor.
(ii) I award the sum of ?10,000.00 as general damages in favour of the plaintiffs against the 1st defendant.
(iii) There shall be an order of injunction restraining the 1st defendant, his servants, agents, workmen and privies from committing further acts of trespass on the land in dispute.
There shall be ?20,000.00 cost in favour of the plaintiffs against the 1st defendant.?

?Expectedly, the appellants being dissatisfied with the

2

said judgment, appealed against it to this Court vide their notice of appeal dated and filed on the 10th day of December, 2010. It contained eight grounds of appeal. The said grounds of appeal without their particulars are reproduced below:
?(1) GROUND ONE-ERROR IN LAW
The learned trial judge erred in law in shifting the burden of proof on the defendants/appellants because of what the Court termed admissions in statement of defence.
(2) GROUND TWO-ERROR IN LAW
The learned trial judge erred in law and violated the principle in UKAEBGU VS. NWOLOLO (2009) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1127) 194 when he held that the plaintiffs proved their title to the land in dispute by traditional evidence.
(3) GROUND THREE-MISDIRECTION IN LAW
The learned trial Judge misdirected himself on law and therefore came to a perverse decision when he stated:-
?The plaintiffs in order to prove their title to the land in dispute in this case only needs to prove the particulars of the intervening owners through whom they claimed. The plaintiffs pleaded their line of descent to Gaga, their ancestor and their line of descent pleaded

3

in paragraphs 13 to 17 of their statement of claim was admitted.”
(4) GROUNDS FOUR-ERROR OF LAW
The Court below erred in law in holding that the defendants accepted that the land in dispute was family land of the plaintiffs when the defendants never accepted plaintiffs thesis of reversion to plaintiffs family after the death of Onyeobuna childless and thus led to a perverse decision.
(5) GROUND FIVE ? ERROR IN LAW
The learned trial judge erred in law in failing to evaluate properly or to all (sic) the totality of evidence led in the case.
(6) GROUND SIX ? ERROR IN LAW
The learned trial judge erred in law in failing to evaluate properly or at all Exhibit ?D? ? the 1st defendant?s 1976 Deed of Conveyance ? and the significance of the 1st defendant surveying the land in dispute as far back in 1976.
(7) GROUND SEVEN ? ERROR IN LAW
The learned trial judge erred in law in entering judgment for the plaintiffs when they did not prove their case through any of the five ways of proving title to land.
(8) The

4

Judgment is against the weight of evidence.?

In accordance with the rules of this Court, the parties duly filed and exchanged their respective briefs of argument. The appellants? brief of argument was prepared by Chief O. B. Onyali, SAN. It was filed on the 27th day of October, 2011. The respondents? brief of argument was settled by O. R. Ulasi, SAN. It was filed on the 9th day of December, 2011. In response to the respondents? brief, the appellants? counsel filed the appellants? reply brief on the 20th day of December, 2011.

In his appellants? brief of argument, learned senior counsel to the appellants formulated five (5) issues for determination in this appeal. The issues are reproduced below:
?(i) Whether the Court below was right in shifting the burden of proof on to the appellants because of what it termed admissions in the defence case. (Grounds 1 and 4)
(ii) Whether the respondents established their title to the land in dispute by traditional evidence. (Grounds 2 and 3)
(iii) Whether the Court below evaluated properly or at all the evidence led in the case. (Grounds 5 and 8)<br< p=””

</br<