Ejike Joe Ajala V. Ogbonna Okogbue & Anor (2010)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

HELEN MORONKEJI OGUNWUMIJU, J.C.A.(Delivering the Leading Judgment)

This is an appeal by the Appellant, who was the Plaintiff in the suit at the trial in the court below against the judgment of Hon. Justice Obisike Oji sitting at the High Court of Abia State, Isikwuato Judicial Division and delivered on 30th March, 2009.

The Appellant as the Plaintiff in the court below in his amended statement of claim had claimed against the Respondents who were the Defendants the following reliefs, inter alia:

“(a) A declaration that the Plaintiff is entitled to the Statutory Right of Occupancy over and in respect of the parcels or pieces of land known as and called “Abor Uriem” situate at Elegwunta Ndi Ohia Amaba Isuikwuato in Isuikwuato Local Government Area of Abia State within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court and verged pink in the Plaintiff’s survey plan in this suit.

(b) N=1,000,000.00 (one million Naira) being damages for the various acts of trespass by the Defendants on the said Plaintiff’s land.

(c) An order of injunction permanently restraining the Defendants or their agents, privies, servants or those claiming through them from further trespassing into and continuing their trespasses on the Plaintiff’s “Abor Uriem” land in whatever form or by whatever means whatsoever.”

The Appellant was the Plaintiff while the Respondents were the Defendants at the trial court. The Respondents did not counter-claim. Issues were joined and the case was tried by the lower court. At the end of the trial, the learned trial judge dismissed the Appellant’s claim. Hence this appeal.

The Appellant’s brief was dated and filed on 17/09/09 and reply brief also dated 25/11/09 was deemed filed on 11/10/10. The Respondent’s brief was dated 5/10/09 and filed on 6/10/09.

The Appellant identified four issues for determination as follows:

i. Whether the trial court properly evaluated the totality of the evidence adduced before it, particularly that of the Appellant, before arriving at its decision.

ii. Whether the trial court was right in law to have side-tracked the Appellant’s root of title which was predicated on traditional history or evidence and instead based its judgment on acts of possession or ownership.

iii. Whether the trial court was right to have relied on a Customary Court judgment in which the appellant was not a party in dismissing the Appellant’s claim.

iv. Whether the judgment was against the weight of evidence adduced before the trial court.

The Respondents also identified three issues for determination. They are set out below: