N. Ibe V. Peter Onuorah (2001)
LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report
AKPABIO, J.C.A.
This is an appeal against the judgment of Okadigbo, J. of the High Court of Enugu State, sitting at Enugu, in suit No. E/10A/80, delivered on 7/4/82, wherein he allowed an appeal which went to him from a decision of Chief Magistrate J.N.M. Onyechi of Chief Magistrate’s Court, Enugu in suit No. ME/284/78.
It should be explained at this stage that the claim of the plaintiff was initially filed at the Enugu High Court. But after pleadings had been filed and exchanged the suit was transferred to the Chief Magistrate’s Court, Enugu pursuant to section 46(1) of the High Court Law of Enugu State, by the Hon. Justice A.I. Iguh, J. (as he then was) on 18/9/78.
It should be explained at this stage that the claim of the plaintiff was initially filed at the Enugu High Court. But after pleadings had been filed and exchanged the suit was transferred to the Chief Magistrate Court, Enugu pursuant to section 46(1) of the High Court Law of Enugu State, by the Hon. Justice A.I. Iguh, J. (as he then was) on 18/9/78.
The claim of the plaintiff filed in the High Court, but transferred to the Chief Magistrate Court, for hearing and determination read as follows:-
“The plaintiff’s claim against the defendant is for perpetual injunction, restraining the defendant, his agents or servants from entering into or on or upon a piece and parcel of land situate at Abakpa Nike within the jurisdiction of the court which is in exclusive possession of the plaintiff as the owner as shown on plan No. AN/GA437/76, and N580 special and general damages for trespass thereon made up as follows:-
“(a) N80,00 being value of 4 cement pillars wrongfully removed by the defendant and
(b) N500.00 being general damages.”
At the end of the Magistrate’s Court trial, the learned Chief Magistrate held that the plaintiff had not proved that he was lawfully in possession of the land in dispute. He therefore dismissed both the plaintiff’s claim and the defendant’s counter-claim which he said he did not see, with no order as to costs.
The plaintiff being dissatisfied with that judgment appealed to the High Court of Anambra State of Nigeria, holden at Enugu, coram Okadigbo, J. The appeal was duly argued, at the end of which the learned appellate Judge, Okadigbo, 1. allowed the appeal with the following comments:-
“After a most careful consideration of the learned counsel for the appellant, I am satisfied that the appeal succeeds and it is accordingly allowed. The judgment of the learned Chief Magistrate in suit No. ME/54/78 and dated 22/10/79 is hereby set aside.”
The appellant in his writ claimed as follows:-
(a) Perpetual injunction restraining the defendant, his agents or servants from entering into the piece of land as shown on plan No. AN/GA437/76;
(b) N80.00 being value of 4 cement beacons wrongfully removed by the defendant, and
Leave a Reply