John Eze & Ors V. Matthaias Obiefuna & Ors (1995)

MOHAMMED, J.S.C. 

The plaintiffs sued the defendants at the Awka High Court, now in Anambra State, for a declaration of title to a piece of land under native law and custom. They also claimed damages for trespass and injunction.

The trial was opened on 23rd January, 1979, and at the close of the proceedings the learned trial Judge, Umezinwa, J., in a well considered judgment, found in favour of the plaintiffs against the defendants jointly and severally as follows:-

“(1) A declaration that the plaintiffs are the holders of the customary certificate of occupancy of the piece and parcel of land as shown verged Yellow in Plan No. EC401/73 within which is the area verged Pink and Purple, admitted in evidence in this proceeding as Exhibit ‘A’.

(2) Perpetual injunction restraining the defendants, their servants or agents from further acts of trespass on the said land. The claim for N200.00 damages for trespass is dismissed.”

Dissatisfied with the judgment of the High Court the defendants filed an appeal against the decision at the Enugu Division of the court of Appeal. The plaintiffs also being not satisfied with the dismissal of their claim for N200.00 damages for trespass filed a respondent’s notice contending that the judgment of the trial High Court be varied. In the respondent’s notice, they prayed the court of Appeal to enter judgment in favour of their claim for N200.00 damages for trespass.

This appeal is brought by the defendants, who will hereafter be referred to as the appellant. Three grounds of appeal were filed by the appellants for the prosecution of this appeal. The grounds read as follows:-

“(1) The Court or Appeal erred in law in reversing the judgment of the High Court dismissing the plaintiffs’ claim for damages.

Particulars of Error

(i) The respondents did not appeal against the said decision.

(ii) The respondent’s Notice filed in respect of the said decision cannot operate as a Notice of Appeal.

(2) The Court of Appeal erred in law in affirming the grant by the High Court of a declaration that “the plaintiffs are the holders of the customary certificate of occupancy of the piece and parcel of land as shown verged yellow in Plan No. EC401/73 within the area verged pink and purple.”

Particulars 0f Error

(i) There is no such title known to the law as “customary certificate of title.”

(ii) There is absolutely no evidence that the plaintiffs held any certificate whatsoever in respect of the land aforesaid.