Johnson Ifeacho & Anor V. Inland Medical Company (Nigeria) Limited (1999)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

FABIYI, J.C.A.

This is an appeal against the ruling of Ernest-Egbuna, J. sitting at Awka High Court, Anambra State of Nigeria delivered on 19-2-98. The learned trial Judge, by the ruling, dismissed the application of the Appellants by which they prayed for an order allowing them to defend the suit and also prosecute their counter-claim “for themselves and on behalf of the Ifeacho and Nwadibie Family of Isiagu-Amikwo Village of Awka”.

For a proper appreciation of the issues at stake in this appeal, it is apt to recapitulate albeit briefly, the background facts of the matter. The stand of the Respondent is that the Government of Anambra State issued a statutory certificate of occupancy over the contested parcel of land within an industrial layout in Awka environ to Inland Group of Companies (Nigeria) Limited. This company, in turn, granted the Respondent an irrevocable power of Attorney in respect of the said parcel of land subject of certificate of occupancy. The Respondent thereafter commenced a building project on the land. The two appellants moved onto the land and physically stopped the Respondent’s workers on site from progressing with further work.

Consequent upon the above position/stance of the Appellants, the Respondent then filed its action claiming damages for trespass and injunction.

The two appellants on record, on their own part, maintain that the land is their family property. Their Ifeacho and Nwadibie family had been farming on the said land from time immemorial through their family members. When the family noticed the presence of the Respondent on the land, the family mandated them to stop any trespasser on the land. They complied as they went to stop the Respondent from further clearing the land preparatory to building a house. It is instructive to note here that the Appellants also counter-claimed for damages for trespass and injunction against the Respondent over the land as well.

After pleadings were exchanged and issues duly joined, the appellants filed a motion in which they prayed:

‘… For an order allowing the named defendants on record to defend and prosecute this suit for themselves and on behalf of all others, the members of Ifeacho and Nwadibie family of Isiagu Amikwo Village, Awka … ‘

The averments in the affidavit of the 1st Appellant in support of their motion point to the fact that the land belonged to their family and not to the appellants personally. In stopping the Respondent from further work on the land, they were acting under the instruction and authority of their family. They asked that the family be made a party to the suit. As well, they maintained that they have the full authority of the family to represent them.

It is also pertinent to give a resume of the ruling of 19- 2-98 now under fire. The trial Judge agreed that the appellants established clearly that the Ifeacho and Nwadibie family mandated the appellants to represent them in the suit. The Trial judge was of the view that since the claim and the counter-claim relates to trespass and injunction such is a challenge to possession and not a challenge to title to the land. That since no title is in issue, the family members have no interest to protect in the subject-matter of the suit and are not parties likely to be affected by the result of the claim for trespass and injunction. The Trial Judge felt that the effect of the application being granted would be that the named defendants would cease to be the only defendants but would appear in this case merely as representatives of their family. That the family would then supplant the named defendants on record.

The above, in a nutshell, contain the rationale of the trial Judge. Such led him to dismiss the application of the appellants for joinder of necessary parties with N500 costs in favour of the Respondent. The stated dismissal of the appellants’ application precipitated this appeal. The notice cum grounds of appeal dated 3-3-98 was filed on 4-3-98. Two grounds of appeal accompanied the said notice of appeal. They read as follows with their particulars:

‘(a) The learned trial Judge erred in law when he refused to allow the defendants on record to defend this suit for themselves and on behalf of Ifeacho and Nwadibie families on the ground that title is not in issue in this suit whereas title is in issue because trespass and injunction were claimed together.’

Particulars of Error

i. The Plaintiff/Respondent having claimed damages for trespass and injunction, whilst the defendants/appellants counter-claimed also for damages for trespass and injunction over the disputed land, title is inexorably in issue.

ii. Since the dispute revolves around which of the parties is in exclusive possession the presumption of law is that the person having a better title to the disputed land is the person in possession.