John Nwachukwu & Anor V. Michael Abara & Ors (1976)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

SOWEMIMO, JSC

This appeal is against the judgment of Ikpeazu, J., delivered on 14th November, 1973, at the High Court of the East, Central State sitting at Owerri in suits HOW/25/72 & HOW/24/73, which were consolidated and tried together.

The claims of the plaintiffs in   suit HOW/25/72 were dismissed but the claims of the defendants who were plaintiffs in Suit HOW/24/73 were granted. It is against the judgment in the consolidated suits that this appeal was brought.    The plaintiffs in suit HOW/25/72 sued “for themselves and as representing the community of Umuzie Nguru” and the claims are: –

(a) Title to that piece and parcel of land verged GREEN in plan No. UN.D/9/72 filed by the plaintiffs and known as and called “MKPORO” or “MKPORO UMUEZIE NGURU” in Mbaise within Owerri Judicial Division with annual rent of £4. (four pounds)

(b) £100. (one hundred pounds) special and general damages made up as follows: – 1. Special Damages     One Uhi tree value £35 £35   One Uhi tree value £15 £15 2. General Damages £50   Total £100:

(c) Injunction permanently restraining the defendants their servants, agents and/or workmen from further acts of trespass and from dealing with the land in dispute in a manner inconsistent with the interest of Umuezie Community.”

The defendants were sued individually.   The 1st defendant is the plaintiff in suit HOW/24/73, and sued as defendants the plaintiffs in suit HOW/25/72 individually and not in their representative capacity. The claims in that suit are:

(1) Declaration of title to a piece of land known and called “UHU-ETITI” situate at Umuezie Nguru Mbaise as shown in Plan No. EC. 273/72 filed with this Statement of Claim.

(2) Injunction restraining the defendants their servants and agents from further acts of trespass on the said land.”

Because the two suits were consolidated, the plaintiffs in the first suit were referred to as plaintiffs in the judgment and the defendants were similarly referred to.    The claim of the plaintiffs is that Nkporo land is a forest land communally owned by four kindreds namely, Umuelee, Unwe, Umuasigo and Umuchokocha whose common ancestor was one Ezie. There are economic trees in the forest land and from time immemorial, the land was never cleared, brushed, set on fire or cultivated. It was reserved for a juju called Agwuishi as a sacred dwelling place and shrine and it is said to be worshipped by all the people.

As to acts of user, the plaintiffs claimed that both the people and juju priests collect fruits, herbs and roots. The juju priests were alleged to have sold some economic trees in 1960 and the proceeds used to purchase some zinc sheets as roofings for juju shrines. It was also claimed that in 1934 the plaintiffs planted some Ukpo trees on the boundaries with their neighbours.    As to the cause of action, the plaintiffs claimed that in 1972, the defendants entered the Nkporo land, cleared a large area and cut down some economic trees. Fire was later set on the forest land, and this destroyed the rest of the economic trees on the land.

In their defence, the first three defendants claimed to be members of the Umuchokocha kindred and the remaining four defendants were described as labourers who came from Enyiogugu and had no interest in the matter. They claimed that they inherited a large area of land known as UHU-ETITI from their ancestor one Chokocha, and that the area called Nkporo land formed a portion of their own land.

They claimed that their forefather Chokocha was one of the four children of their common ancestor Ezie, and that UHU-ETITI land was his own share to the land given to him on the death of Ezie. The defendants, i.e., Umuchokocha people, denied plaintiffs’ allegation of possession and claimed exclusive possession. They also claimed that the Agwuishi juju belonged to them.    In HOW/24/73, the Umuchokocha as plaintiffs claimed their title to UHU-ETITI land through their forefather Chokocha a son of Ezie.

They alleged that their forefather reserved a portion of Nkporo land as forest reserve after he had cultivated other portions of it. They claimed to have felled timber trees in the forest generally to the knowledge and non-interference by the two defendants who were sued individually. They alleged that the claim of the defendants arose because of the paucity in their – Plaintiffs’ – numbers due to losses during intervene local wars, and the jealousy of the defendants because of the large area of Umuchockocha land. The defendants denied these allegations and claimed that various portions of the land in Nkporo belonged to other individuals other than plaintiffs, and who cultivated them.    After a review of the evidence called by both parties, and what we considered to be a proper evaluation of the whole evidence, the learned trial Judge stated thus: –