Mr. Osibakoro Otuedon (For Himself And On Behalf Of Prince Otuedon Family Of Ugbolokposo) v. Mr. Uchenna Livinus Ofor (2024)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report – SUPREME COURT

CHIOMA EGONDU NWOSU-IHEME, JSC (Delivering the leading judgment)

This is an appeal by the appellant against the judgment of the Court of Appeal, Benin Division delivered by Philomena Mbua Ekpe, JCA on the 12th day of April, 2019 affirming the decision of the trial court.

Relevant facts:

The appellant claimed at the trial court that he was the head and accredited representative of the Prince Otuedon family of Ugbolokposo Town.

The appellants claim against the respondent was that sometime in November 2013 in the course of a routine check on his family land at Ugbolokposo, he discovered that the respondent and his work men and privies had trespassed on a portion of his family land.

All efforts to stop the respondent and his privies from further trespassing thereon proved abortive. He then filed a claim at the High Court of Delta State claiming as follows:

  1. A declaration that the piece of land lying and situate along Uti Road, Ugbolokposo, close to the DSC Express Road by DPR Warri – Staff MPCS Filling Station more particularly measuring approximately 460.932 Square Meters where the defendant built upon and is carrying out business thereon belongs to the Prince Otuedon family of Ugbolokposo.
  2. A declaration that any conveyance, title or interest obtained thereon by the defendant from any person(s) whatsoever without the consent and approval of the claimant is void ab initio.
  3. A declaration that the purported Deed of Transfer made between Donald Otuedon, Emmanuel Oleyu, Johnson Enetsemi, Emmanuel Atseruboma, Kelly Otuedon and Hyginus Ikechukwu Okeke is a nullity and it is void ab initio.
  4. The sum of N100,000,000 (One hundred million naira) only as general damages against the defendant for the brazen and wanton acts of trespass committed by him when he, without the consent and approval of the claimant first sought and obtained, broke and entered claimants family land, commenced and built a house thereupon inspite of repeated warnings to stop and desist from same.
  5. A declaration that the building erected on claimants family land by the defendant be forfeited by the defendant to the claimants family on the principle of quid quid plantatur solo solo cedit.
  6. Any other suitable relief.
See also  Barbedos Ventures Ltd V First Bank Of Nigeria Plc (2015) LLJR-SC

Issues were joined and the matter went to trial.

The learned trial Judge, in a considered judgment delivered on the 5th day of July, 2017 dismissed the case of the appellant in favour of the respondent. He held thus:

Therefore on the balance of probability and even on preponderance of evidence the case of the defendant stands firmly on the ground whilst that of the claimant crumbles like a pack of cards.

This is because applying the five ways of proving title to land as enacted in a long line of cases and as stated on Mulima v. Gorurani supra the defendant has established his title to the land by documentary, various act of ownership both by his witness and himself as against the claimant who has nothing meaningful to offer.

I hold therefore that the clamant has not been able to establish his case according to law and is therefore undeserving of the reliefs he is seeking from court. Accordingly his claim is hereby dismissed with N50,000.00 (Fifty thousand naira) cost in favour of the defendant.

The appellant, dissatisfied with the judgment of the trial court, proceeded to the Court of Appeal, Benin. The Court of Appeal affirmed the decision of the trial court.

The appellant, again, dissatisfied with the judgment of the Court of Appeal, has appealed to this court vide a notice of appeal dated and filed on the 19th of June, 2019. The appellants brief settled by D. E Agbaga, Esq., was filed on 19/9/2019. The respondents brief of argument settled by S. A. Atarere, Esq., was filed on 17/7/2020 and deemed properly filed on 25/5/2029.

See also  Lady Kofo Ademola & Ors v. Probate Registrar (1971) LLJR-SC

The appellant relied on the three grounds of appeal in his notice of appeal from whence he distilled three issues for determination, to wit:

Membership Required

You must be a member to access this content.

View Membership Levels

Already a member? Log in here

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *