Ekine Eze & Ors V. Chief Oruwari Ekpidie Owusoh & Anor (1962)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

 TAYLOR, F.J

The plaintiffs / respondents suing for themselves and as representing the people of Odaga claim against the ten defendants jointly and severally as follows :-

£500 damages for trespass in that on or about the month of January, 1957, the defendants and their people did break and enter into the plaintiffs’ land known and called “Ema” and therein cleared the bush made farms therein, collected palm fruits there from and did diverse manners of work therein without the leave or license of the plaintiffs and their people. The defendants and their people still continue their several acts of trespass on the said land.

The defendants are admittedly natives of Agada No. 1. It is not disputed in this appeal that in consolidated suits P. 11 / 52 and P 15 / 52, the Plaintiffs have previously obtained a judgment against the people of Agada No. 1 for a declaration of title to and injunction in respect of the land in dispute, called by the plaintiffs “Ema” and by the defendants “Ipiolock”. The Learned Trial Judge after hearing evidence on both sides held, inter alia that:-

I am satisfied and I find as a fact from the evidence before me that the land in dispute in this case before me is the land in dispute in the 1952 case.

I am satisfied and I also find as a fact from the evidence before me that the defendants went and farmed on the land in dispute in January 1957 as alleged by the Plaintiffs.

For these reasons I must find for the plaintiffs. As regards damages I am satisfied from the evidence before me that the sum of £500 claimed by the plaintiffs is reasonable for the trespass alleged.

I therefore give judgment for the plaintiffs against the defendants jointly and severally for the sum of £500 damages for trespass committed by them on plaintiffs’ land called “Ema” and 120 guineas costs.

The only grounds of appeal argued at the hearing of the appeal against this judgment of Savage, J., of the High Court of Port Harcourt, were the six additional grounds contained in the application of the 13th October, 1962. Grounds 4 and 5 of such grounds may be disposed of in the following manner:-

The former alleges that:-

The Learned Trial Judge erred in law in giving judgment against the 9th defendant with the alleged acts of trespass.

There can be no doubt that the evidence of the second plaintiff witness under cross-examination by the 9th defendant filled the gap in his evidence in chief and implicated this defendant.

On Ground 5, Learned Counsel for the Appellants was under a misconception that the ground was one dealing with damages and not costs. It reads thus:-

“Costs awarded in the suit are excessive.” There is no substance in these two grounds of appeal and they are dismissed. Chief Davies, Q.C., for the appellants, rested his arguments on the following contentions contained in the first and second grounds of appeal, which urge that:-