Egbo V Agbara (1997)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

A. I. IGUH, J.S.C. 

In the Port Harcourt Judicial Division of the High Court of Justice of the former Rivers State of Nigeria, the plaintiffs, who are now respondents, for themselves and as representing the people of Opolo Village, caused a writ of summons to issue against the defendants, now appellants,for themselves and as representing the people of Okutukutu and Etegwe villages, claiming as follows:-

“(i) A declaration of title of ownership of the piece or parcel of land known as “Kaliema” and “Okobede” situate at Opolo Village Yenagoa in Brass Division in the Rivers State of Nigeria, whose value is five pounds .

(ii) 3500 pounds general damages for trespass in that the defendants wrongfully entered upon the plaintiffs’ land and planted crops as well as damaging some plaintiffs property on the said land.

(iii) A perpetual injunction restraining the defendants, their servants or agents from entering on or in any manner whatsoever, committing any further trespass on the said piece or parcel of land.”

Pleadings were ordered in the suit and were duly settled, filed and exchanged.

At the subsequent trial, both parties testified on their own behalf and called witnesses. The pieces or parcels of land in dispute are known as and called Kaliama and Okebede by the plaintiffs and Kaliama and Okoria by the defendants. The identities of the said pieces of land, on the unchallenged finding of the trial court, as affirmed by the court below, are not in dispute. Said the learned trial Judge:-

“The plaintiffs call the lands in dispute “Kaliama” and “Okebede” while the defendants give the names as “Kaliama” and “Okoria” but considering the plans filed by the parties and the evidence of the boundaries of these pieces of lands, I am satisfied that the identity of each piece of land is well known by both parties and the difference in name only cannot be of any consequence indisproving the knowledge of that identity.”

Both parties, for their root of title, relied, firstly on acts of long continuous possession and enjoyment of the land in dispute and, secondly, on traditional evidence. Each side claimed to be the original owners of the land from time immemorial. They claimed that their respective named ancestors were the first persons to acquire and occupy the land by deforestation in accordance with their customary law.

At the conclusion of hearing, the learned trial Judge, Dagogo-Manuel, J. after a careful review of the evidence on the 17th day of June, 1985 found for the plaintiffs and decreed as follows:

“In consequence, I exercise my discretion in favour of the members of Opolo villages and declare in their favour a customary right of occupancy over the disputed lands, namely, Kaliama and Okobede or Okoria. These areas are pink in the plan marked Exhibit “A” and are within the larger area, verged green in Exhibit “A”. I also award them N200 as general damages for trespass and order an injunction against the members of Okutukutu and Etegwe villages from committing any further acts of trespass on those lands.”

Dissatisfied with the decision of the trial court, the defendants lodged an appeal against the same to the Court of Appeal, Enugu Division which in an unanimous judgment on the 20th day of April, 1988 dismissed the appeal and affirmed the decision of the trial court, On the contention of the defendants that the learned trial Judge had no jurisdiction to continue with the trial of the suit which he had commenced at the Ahoada Judicial Division and concluded at the Port Harcourt Judicial Division without an order of transfer from the hand of the Chief Judge of the High Court of the Rivers State, the court below resolved the matter as follows:- ,

“The learned trial Judge had jurisdiction to continue the trial of the suit when he was transferred from Ahoada Judicial Division to Port Harcourt Judicial Division by virtue of the combined effect of sections 234 and 236 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria in that there is only one High Court in the Rivers State”.

Aggrieved by this decision of the Court of Appeal, the defendants have further appealed to this court. I shall hereinafter refer to the plaintiffs and the defendants in this judgment as the respondents and the appellants respectively.