Evaristus Ike Akor & Ors V. Ignatius Ogbonna & Anor (2016)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

RITA NOSAKHARE PEMU, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

This is an Appeal against the interlocutory ruling of Hon Justice I. S Amanoh, sitting at Nsukka in the Enugu State High Court in suit No N/43/2009, delivered on the 1st day of June 2010.

In the Ruling, the learned trial Judge overruled the Preliminary objection filed and argued by the Appellants.

?SYNOPSIS OF FACTS
The Appellants had filed suit No N/9/2009 for and on behalf of themselves and Ukpabi Nimbo people against the Respondents in respect of the Ukpabi Nimbo Communal parcels of land situate at different locations, for declaration, injunction etc. They also sought damages.

The Respondents filed a counter claim, also in a representative capacity for declaration, order of perpetual injunction, damages for trespass.

While the counter-claim was pending in the High Court 1 Nsukka in a representative capacity against Everistus Ike Akor & Thomas Dieke for themselves and on behalf of Ukpabi Nmibo people, except the Respondent, the Respondents filed another suit N/43/2009, against the same Everistus Ike Akor, Thomas Dieke and other Ukpabi Nimbo

1

people who were represented by Evaristus Ike Akor, and Thomas Dieke, both in N/9/2009 and the counter – claim filed by the Respondents.

The fresh suit N/43/2009, filed later against the Appellant by the Respondents is pending at the same time in the High Court III, Nsukka, which suit pertains to the same parcels of Ukpabi Nimbo Communal land, claiming damages for same palm trees, for trespass.

While the Respondents’ counter claim on the same subject matters, issues cause of action and relief is pending at the High Court I Nsukka against the Appellants, the fresh suit – on the same subject matter, issues , cause of action, and relief is pending at the same time at the High Court 3 Nsukka.

The Appellant filed a preliminary objection, praying for an order of Court dismissing suit No/43 /2009, for multiplicity of actions, and an abuse of Court process.

The Court in his ruling, delivered on the 18th May 2010 ruled against the preliminary objection.

It is this decision that is being appealed.

?Pursuant to the Practice Direction of this Honourable Court, the Appellants filed their Notice of Appeal on the 1st of June 2010 with two grounds of