Emmanuel Uzoma V. Felix C. Okorie (2000)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

IKONGBEH, J.C.A. 

This is an appeal from the decision of Njeribeako, J., sitting at the then Imo State High Court, Umuahia. The plaintiff’s claim against the defendant was as follows:

“(a) Declaration that the plaintiff is entitled to the statutory right of occupancy of Plot “B” New Town Layout otherwise known as No.12 Macaulay Street, Umuahia – Ibeku in the Umuahia Judicial Division the subject of grant by the Governor of Imo State of Nigeria.

(b) Order of an account for rents received by the defendant from the tenants who occupied and still occupying the plot and building in dispute and to hand over the balance to the plaintiff.

(c) The sum of N50,000.00 (Fifty Thousand Naira) only as general damages for trespass.

(d) Injunction permanently restraining the defendant, his servants, agents and or workmen from entering into, interfering and or in any way dealing thereon known as and numbered No. 12, Macaulay Street, Umuahia-Ibeku within jurisdiction”.

His case, in a nutshell, was that he bought the plot in dispute from the defendant, who passed the document of title, i.e., the lease the latter had from the Eastern Nigerian Government, in the presence of witnesses after he had paid the full purchase price of ?320. The defendant put him in possession of the plot which he later developed and put tenants in. Then came the civil war and he was forced to abandon it when Umuahia became a battle’97field. After the war the plot was left standing in its damaged and overgrown state until 1981 when the defendant, probably in the belief that the war had consumed the plaintiff, sneaked back into possession. He repaired house and put in tenants against all protest from the plaintiff who, by some providence had survived and come to Umuahia at the right time. He has been collecting rents from the tenants.

The defendant admitted that there were negotiations between the plaintiff and him for the former to purchase the plot. They arrived at the purchase price of ?700.00 out of which he plaintiff paid only ?300 and refused to pay the balance. He denied putting the plaintiff into possession. As far as he was concerned, the transaction had fallen through and so he continued to enjoy the plot.

He invited the plaintiff to collect his money. After hearing the witnesses called by the parties the learned Judge, on 6/11/87, delivered his judgment granting all the prayers sought by the plaintiff. He concluded his judgment thus on page 166 of the record:

“In the final result, in the light of my findings, the plaintiff is entitled to succeed and judgment will be and is hereby entered for him. I declare in favour of the plaintiff title to statutory right of occupancy over the land in dispute i.e. No. 12 Macaulay Street, Umuahia Ibeku within jurisdiction. I make an order for the defendant to give an account of rents received from the property from 1982 till October 31st, 1987. The defendant is allowed 30 days from today to file the statement of account and serve same on the plaintiff. I hereby order perpetual injunction restraining the defendant, his servants and/or agents from any further interference with the said property in dispute i.e. No. 12 Macaulay Street, Umuahia-Ibeku”

After the account had been filed he awarded the plaintiff the sum of N18,100.00 against the defendant being the rents the latter had collected on the property during the relevant period. He awarded costs of N2,500.00.

Aggrieved, the defendant has appealed to this court on two original grounds. With leave of court seven additional grounds were filed on his behalf. The following four issues for determination were formulated in the appellant’s brief of argument:

1. Whether in view of the provisions of Order 42 rule 9 of the High Court Rules then applicable to Imo State, and section 258(1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1979 the judgment is not a nullity.
2. Whether in view of the accepted oral evidence the trial Judge had made proper appraisal and evaluation of the evidence and rightly found that respondent was entitled to judgment.
3. Did appellant sign exhibits A, B, and K? Are A, B, and K genuine documents?
4. Whether the respondent could be declared to be entitled to statutory right of occupancy in respect of No. 12 Macaulay Street, Umuahia when the appellant’s state lease is subsisting and has not been revoked.”

The respondent’s counsel did not formulate any real issues. What he described as issues are mere subsidiary question arising in the issues formulated on behalf of the appellant. I shall, therefore, decide the appeal on the basis of those issues.

The first point taken by the learned Senior Advocate was that because no oral addresses were taken from counsel for the parties, no address at all could be said to have been taken. This, according to him, is because Order 42 rule 9 of the High Court Civil Procedure Rules applicable in Imo State made provision for oral address and not written addresses. Nor did the 1979 Constitution, then applicable, make any provision for written addresses in the High Court.