Eleazar Okoli V. Reginald Okoli & Anor (2002)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

FABIYI, J.C.A. 

This is an appeal against the judgment of Okoli, J. delivered on 14th December, 1998 while sitting at the High Court of Justice, Ekwulobia, Anambra State of Nigeria.

At the trial court, the appellant as plaintiff thereat, claimed as follows:

“(1) A declaration that the 1st defendant having denied the title of the plaintiff to the piece or parcel of land known as and called “Ana Okoli” situate and being in Ndioha Village, Ndiokpalaeze Town, Orumba North Local Government Area, has forfeited his right to be on the land.

(2) Possession of the said land.

(3) Injunction restraining the defendants, their servants or agents from continuing with any building on the land in dispute; putting any more building materials thereon, moulding blocks thereon, occupying any building put on the said land, or entering the land in dispute for any purpose.”

As ordered by the trial court, parties filed and exchanged pleadings. In paragraph 10 of the statement of claim, the plaintiff alleged that he granted the land in dispute to the 1st defendant under native law and custom to live upon before Land Use Act, 1978. He maintained that the 1st defendant thereby became his customary tenant but failed to fulfil his obligation to pay customary tribute and observe the conditions relating to a customary tenant. Further, the plaintiff asserted that the 1st defendant claimed that the land was not granted to him by the plaintiff but was his own and that he gave a portion of same to the 2nd defendant.

The 1st defendant denied that the plaintiff made any grant of land to him. He maintained that the land was granted to him in 1950 by Godwin Ekemezie Okoli – the then head of Okoli Ezeokolo family. He denied giving the 2nd defendant any portion of the land in dispute.

The plaintiff, in his bid to prove that the 1st defendant is his customary tenant, said he granted the 1st defendant the land on which he lives. The land is called “Ana Okoli.” The plaintiff said that the 1st defendant refused to fulfil the custom of presenting a goat and five yam tubers to him. The plaintiff stated that the 1st defendant denied that it was not the plaintiff who made the grant to him but that it was his elder brother who did same.

The plaintiff said that he granted land to Godffery Okoli and the 1st defendant when his father died. This was over one hundred years ago. The plaintiff admitted that he was 85 years old. The plaintiff said his father had four sons – Godwin, Josiah, Eleazar (plaintiff) and Godffery. The plaintiff denied that Godwin died in 1955. He said that Godwin did not grant the land in dispute to the 1st defendant in 1950.

The 1st defendant, on his own part, testified that as a member of Okoli Ezeokolo family, he was allocated the piece of land in dispute by Godwin Ekemezie Okoli, the then head of the family in 1950. He built his first house in 1951 on the land and lived therein with members of his family and his mother – Elemetere. He built a storey building on the land which was completed in 1993. When his mother died in December 1988, she was buried in the compound without anyone’s permission.

He said he is a product of Nrachi custom carried out between his great grand father Okoli Ezeokolo and his mother – Elemetere.

The evidence of the 1st defendant was, in the main, supported by D.W.1, wife of Godwin Okoli, head of family as at 1950 as well as D.W.2 – Steven Nwankwo who said Godwin confirmed same to him on the day he borrowed bicycle from him for his wedding. He confirmed that the 1st defendant built his first house on the land in 1951 and that Godwin Okoli died in 1955 or 1956. The 3rd witness – Samuel Onuoha said Okoli Ezeokolo had seven sons of which his father was the most senior. He confirmed that the 1st defendant, as one of the sons of Okoli Ezeokolo, was granted a parcel of land by the then head of the family. He confirmed that D.W.1 – Rosaline Okoli was the wife of Godwin Okoli.

The learned trial Judge was duly addressed by counsel on both sides. In his reserved judgment, the trial Judge found that the plaintiff’s claim, principally hinged on his alleged customary grant of the land in dispute to the 1st defendant, was not proved. He thereafter dismissed the said claim.