Mr. Saturday Dibia & Ors v. Maxwell O. Tubonimia & Ors (2024)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report – SUPREME COURT

MOHAMMED LAWAL GARBA, JSC (Delivering the leading judgment)

By the amended statement of claim dated 27th September, 1984, the respondents sued the appellants before the Rivers State High Court, sitting at Ahoada (trial Court) for trespass, damages, injunction and title to a piece of land they called Ade-Ikobo Adoghany, Omalem situated at Amalem Abua Village in the Abua-Odua District of Ahoada, L. G. A.

The appellants as defendants denied the claims against them in the amended statement of defence dated the 9th May, 1994 and so the matter proceeded to trial during which the respondents called four (4) witnesses in proof of their case, while the appellants called five (5) witnesses in defence.

Survey plans were tendered by consent at the trial and admitted in evidence as exhibit A- for the respondents and Exhibit B- for the appellants.

At the end of the trial, judgment was entered in favour of the respondents, on the 28th April, 1998. as per their writ of summons. Dissatisfied with the judgment of the trial court, the appellants filed a notice of appeal dated the 14th July, 1998 before Court of Appeal, Port Harcourt Division (Court below) against same on six (6) grounds as shown at page 213-218 of the record of appeal.

In a judgment delivered on the 10th December, 2009, the court below dismissed the appellants appeal for lacking in merit and affirmed the decision of the trial court.

Again, not satisfied with the decision of the court below to dismiss their case (appeal), the appellants then brought this final appeal vide the notice and grounds of appeal, dated and filed on the 4th May, 2010, pursuant to the leave of the court granted on the 28th April, 2010. There are sixteen (16) grounds contained on the notice of appeals from which four (4) issues are submitted to the court for determination in the appellants brief filed on the 5th November, 2010 as follows:

‘3.01 Issue No. 1 whether considering the pleadings, survey plan and evidence of the respondents, there was no inconsistency or uncertainty on the location of the land which was claimed by them (respondents). (Distilled from ground 1 and 2).

3.02 Issue No. 2: whether the Court of Appeal was right to conclude/find that the respondents proved title to the land in dispute and their claims in this case. (Distilled from grounds 3, 4, 8, 10, 14 and 16).

3.03 Issue No. 3: whether the Court of Appeal was right, fair and in its consideration/treatment of the evidence/case of the appellants vis-a-vis that for the respondents. (Distilled from ground 5, 6 and 7).

3.04 Issue No. 4 whether the findings and conclusions of the Court of Appeal in its judgment in this suit are proper/ justified in law. (Distilled from ground 9, 11, 12, 12 and 15).

For the respondents, the issues said to call for decision in the appeal from the grounds on the notice of appeal are in the following terms:

1. Whether there is inconsistency and uncertainty with respect to the location of the land in dispute front the state of the pleadings, survey plan (i.e. exhibit A) and evidence of the respondents herein. (Distilled front grounds 1 and 2)
2. Whether the lower court was right in law in sustaining the judgment of the trial court having regards to the evidence adduced by parties herein. (Distilled front grounds 3 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16).

I also note that the appellants filed an appellants reply brief on the 29th September, 2022 after receipt of the respondents brief.

The appellants issues, for representing the points of dissatisfaction and complaints against the decision by the lower courts, would be used for the determination of the appeal.