Godwin Nwafor Maduka & Ors V. Victor Echezona Anyadiegwu (2014)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

MASSOUD ABDULRAHMAN OREDOLA, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

This is an appeal from the judgment of the High Court, Anambra State, Idemili Judicial Division, sitting at Ogidi, hereinafter referred to as the lower court, in Suit No. HID/171/2006, delivered on the 30th day of May, 2008. In the decision of the said lower court, Hon. Justice J. I. Nweze, J. entered judgment in favour of the plaintiff who is hereinafter referred to as the respondent.

Briefly put, the facts of the case are that the respondent as plaintiff, initially commenced Suit No. CCOB/49/97 at the Customary Court, Oba, claiming declaration of title, damages for trespass and injunction against the 1st defendant alone. About two years after the said commencement of the suit, two other defendants applied to be joined in the suit and they were subsequently joined.

The three defendants are hereinafter referred to as the appellants. By order of the Administrative Judge in charge of Idemili Judicial Division, dated 22nd June, 2006 the suit was transferred to the High Court for hearing and determination.

Pursuant thereto and on 18th December, 2006 the lower court ordered the parties to comply with the requisite/relevant procedural provisions of the rules of the lower court, with regard to the filing of pleadings and affidavit evidence , that is witnesses’ written statement on oath and so on.

Pleadings were duly filed and exchanged between the parties and the suit proceeded to trial/hearing. In his bid to prove his case, the respondent testified in person and called two other witnesses. The appellants also testified in person and further called an additional witness in their defence.

The case of the respondent at the lower court is that the land in dispute was originally founded by one Oba his ancestor. That the said parcel of land devolved from Oba to Isu his son and down the lineage to the respondent. Additionally, the respondent asserted/testified that he had been in possession for a long time and thereby exercised numerous acts of possession.

On the other side of the divide, the 1st appellant’s case is to the effect that he acquired the land in dispute by purchase from the Umuezealukpaka family. He also asserted that he exercised possessory rights over the land in dispute. At the end of trial/hearing, inclusive of adoption of written addresses by the learned counsel for the parties respectively, the learned trial judge adjudged the case of the respondent as having succeeded and thereby granted the reliefs sought by the respondent.

Dissatisfied with this untoward development, the appellants lodged their appeal to this court on a notice of appeal containing seven grounds of appeal. Upon, the grant of leave by this court on 14th April, 2011 the appellants further filed their amended notice of appeal containing five grounds of appeal on 19th April, 2011. The said grounds of appeal shorn of their particulars are reproduced below:-

“(1) The learned trial judge erred in law in entering judgment for the plaintiff – respondent in this case when he failed to prove his case.

(2) The learned trial judge misdirected himself in law in his judgment where he opined as follows:

“The case of the plaintiff is that the land in dispute was originally founded by Oba. He claimed that it devolved from Oba to Isu his son and down to the plaintiff. In his witness statement on oath he did not show how Isu was related to Oba. The defendants as a result contends that he failed to prove an unbroken chronology of his ancestors. They relied on the case of OGUNLEKE V. ADEDIBU (2003) 18 WRN 120. In making this submission the defendant conveniently forgot that under cross-examination the plaintiff explained that “Akabo is the son of Nnakwa. Nnakwa is the son of Isu, whilst Isu is the son of Oba.”

(3) The learned trial judge completely failed to evaluate properly and correctly the evidence before him and this resulted in a miscarriage of justice against the defendants-appellants.

(4)(a) The learned trial judge misdirected himself in fact in holding that the evidence of the 1st defendant confirms that the plaintiffs plan Exhibit P.I. refers correctly to the land in dispute.