Emmanuel Onwuka Umenweluaku V. Anekwe Ezeana & Ors (1972)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

G. S. SOWEMIMO, J.S.C.

In suit 112/57, which was tried at the Native Court of MBAMISI, the plaintiff, who is the appellant before us claimed as against the defendants, who are the respondents, the following:

“1.    Declaration of title to a portion or part of plaintiff’s father’s compound called “Obinikpa” land, dispute arose last month at Uga.

2.     Plaintiff seeks an order of court to restrain defendants, their servants or/and agents from trespassing on the said land pending the determination of the title.”

In the judgment of the Mbamisi Native Court, the claim of the plaintiff was dismissed and “defendants to own their land according to plan AB 28/27”. This was on 24/1/58.

The plaintiff appealed to the District Officer’s court. On 24/4/58, the District Officer gave judgment thus:
“I set aside the Native Court Judgement. Let the two families concerned indicate their boundary, that is the boundary between the two families, which should automatically from the boundary of the pieces of  land owned by plaintiff and No.3 Defendant, on the one side of UMUMEONYE family and by No.1 and No.2 Defendants, on the other side of UMUEZEANI Family. The demarcation of the boundary which shall be done by the two families to be witnessed by the Native Court which shall make the necessary arrangements.” (Underline ours)

In the records of proceedings in the District Officer’s Court, it would appear that the Judgment of the D.O. was based on an agreement between the parties. The relevant portion of the records reads:

“2.    Fortunately both parties agree that the boundary is the same as the common boundary between their respective families, UMUMEONYE AND UNUEZEANI. Plaintiff and his half brother No. 3 Defendants belong to UMUONYE FAMILY and Nos. 1 and 2 defendants belong to UMUEZEANI FAMILY.”

When the parties appeared before the Native Court of Mbamisi, the opening passage of the record reads:

“Case No.112/57 Re-opened according to the appeal order after demarcation of boundary.”

It was also recorded that the representatives of the two families- Umuezeani and Umumeonye – appeared before the court and made statements which were recorded. The court then made the following summary.

“We went yesterday at Uga on the land in dispute after over 2 weeks previous notice. We met majority of both parties, family members. Umumonye family were the people who stood to watch Umuezeala to demarcate. The boundary after demarcation, 25 people of plaintiff family gave a support that the demarcation was genuine and the demarcation corresponds with the 2nd  defendants’s plan thus confirming the previous judgment of the court. There were about 8 people who said they were neutral in respect of the boundary between Umuezeana and Umumonye family  but they said they only know the boundary between the plaintiff and the 3rd defendant we are both from their family Umumonye. They took us to the area and demarcated the boundary and it corresponded with the previous judgment of the court. The boundary between the plaintiff and the 3rd defendants also now been demarcated as can be seen (if 3rd defendant also now been demarcated as can be seen if seen) if the place is visited. In the circumstances, we are compelled to return to an original judgment which dismissed the claim.

Judgment

“For Defendants for the land according to both parties families demarcation which supports the 2nd defendants plan No. AB 28/57.