Desmond Uchechi Nwogu & Ors. V. Onuoha Nwokorobia (2002)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

JAMES OGENYI OGEBE, J.C.A.

The respondent sued the appellants in the High Court of Aboh Mbaise in Imo State presided over by Mbachu, J., claiming as per paragraph 26 of the statement of claim as follows:-

“26. Wherefore the Plaintiff claims as follows:

(a) An order of Court commanding the defendants to surrender to the plaintiff all that piece or parcel of land which is part of ‘ODONKWU NWOKOROBIA’, and situate in Umualim Ikenga Eziudo in Aboh Mbaise, which piece or parcel of land has been in the possession of the defendants, and which the defendants have refused to surrender despite repeated demands.

(b) An injunction perpetually restraining the defendants, servants and or their privies from further entry into the lands so surrendered.”

The appellants filed a statement of defence denying the claim and stating their own version of the traditional history of the land.

The respondent’s case from the pleadings and evidence was that the disputed land originally belonged to his grandfather Nwoko and it passed on to him through inheritance. Part of the land was pledged to the appellants’ family by his father. He and his brother redeemed the land but the appellants refused to give it up.

The appellants, on the other hand, claimed that their ancestor, Ogide originally owned the land and it devolved on them by inheritance.

The trial judge, after listening to the evidence of both parties and addresses by their counsel gave judgment in favour of the respondent and granted him all the reliefs sought.

The appellants were dissatisfied with the decision of the trial court and appealed to this court. Learned counsel for the appellants filed a brief of argument and identified five issues for determination as follows:

“1. Whether the identity of the land in dispute had been established in evidence to warrant judgment for the Plaintiff.

2. Whether the trail judge was right to prefer the plaintiff’s version of the traditional history of the land to that of the defence having regard to the pleadings and evidence thereon.
3. Whether in the circumstances ad on the facts, section 46 of the Evidence Act, 1990 is available to the Plaintiff to the detriment of the defendants.
4. Whether the conduct of the Plaintiff in testifying for the 1st defendant in an earlier arbitration against a third party (DW2) did not amount to an admission against interest and/or estoppel by conduct.
5. Whether in the balance of probabilities the plaintiff proved his case against the Defendants and in particular having regard to S.146 of the Evidence Act. 1990.”

The respondent also filed a brief of argument in which the following issues were distilled for determination:

“1. Whether the identity of the land in dispute had been established to warrant judgment for the plaintiff.

2. Whether the learned trial judge rightly preferred the plaintiff’s version of the traditional history of the land to that of the defence having regard to the pleadings and evidence thereon.
3. Whether the court below rightly applied the provisions of S.46 of the Evidence Act, 1990 in favour of the plaintiff/respondent.
4. Whether, having regard to the evidence before the Trial Court, the rule of “Admission against interest” can be properly invoked against the plaintiff/respondent.”

The main issue in this appeal is whether or not the respondent proved his claim before the trial court by credible evidence. All the issues formulated by both sides are covered by this single issue.