Lawrence Emenyonu & Ors V. Cyril Ndoh & Ors (2000)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

IKONGBEH, J.C.A.

The appellants were the plaintiffs before the Imo State High Court, sitting at Orlu. They had taken out a writ of summons, for themselves and as representing the Amano village, against the respondents, claiming a declaration of title to land, damages for trespass, and an order of injunction. Both parties are farmers living in various villages of Eziachi town, of which Amano, the plaintiff’s village, was one.

The plaintiff’s case on their pleading before the trial court was, briefly, that the land in dispute was their homestead where they had lived and farmed from time immemorial. Their ancestors before them had lived, farmed, died, and had been buried there. Each of them traced his root to one Achi, the founder of Eziachi town, through Amonu, one of the five sons of Achi. They claimed to be the descendants of the four sons of Amonu. The land in dispute, they further claimed, was part of Amonu’s share of Achi’s land that he inherited when Achi’s land was shared out. On the death of Amonu, the land devolved on his four sons and then down the line on them and the other Amonu people that they represent. In addition to their root of title, they pleaded various acts of ownership and possession, such as planting economic trees, selling portions of the land to some of the defendant’s respondent’s people, and donating land for community and government projects. They also alleged that they have on a number of occasions successfully maintained court actions against the defendant’s people over the land. The action that gave rise to this appeal was commenced in 1975 because of alleged acts of trespass committed by the defendants in 1974.

The defendants too filed a further amended statement of defence. They joined issue with the plaintiffs on all the important averments by the latter. When the matter was transferred before G.O. Oyudo, J. who eventually heard the case to conclusion, the learned Judge directed counsel for the parties to settle the issues that they thought arose in the case for determination. Counsel jointly formulated and filed 8 issues.

The 1st plaintiff (1st appellant before us) testified as PW1. Two other witnesses testified for the plaintiffs. The 1st defendant (1st respondent before us) testified as DW1. Two other witnesses testified for the defendants.

After all the evidence was taken out before addressing the court counsel, again jointly, modified the issues earlier formulated, scaling them down to 4. These were the issues on the basis of which learned counsel on both sides pressed their respective client’s cases and on which the learned trial Judge decided the case. Considering some of the complaints made before us, these issues are bound to have some impact on this appeal. For this reason, I think I should set them out here:

(1) Whether the plaintiff’s ancestor Amonu was one of the sons of Achi as pleaded and whether Amann inherited the land in dispute from Achi.

(ii) Who were the original settlers on the land in dispute – plaintiffs or defendants?

(iii) What was the origin and traditional history relating to the plaintiffs’ ancestors, Eke Juju, Ohia Eke (Eke bush) and Eke market?

(iv) Whether the plaintiffs and their grantees enjoy exclusively the use front (sic) of the land in dispute as against the defendants.

At the end of the trial the learned Judge delivered a considered judgment on 15/3/93 resolving all four issues against the plaintiffs and, accordingly, dismissing their action in its entirety.

Aggrieved, the plaintiffs have appealed to this court on nine original grounds of appeal. With leave of the Court, they amended their Notice of Appeal and added a tenth ground. Out of the ten grounds the following issues for determination were formulated on behalf of the appellants:

“I. Whether the judgment of the High Court delivered outside the 3 months statutory period after final address of counsel did not amount to miscarriage of justice by reason of the delay, thus rendering it a nullity.

II. Whether the plaintiffs/appellants have discharged the onus of proof in this case as to entitle them to judgment in terms of their claim.