Nwafor Nwawuba & Ors. V. Jereome Enemuo & Ors. (1988)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

NNAEMEKA-AGU, J.S.C. 

For a proper appreciation of the real issues that arise for determination in this appeal, it is necessary to state the facts in some detail.

In the present suit, which was commenced in Amawbia/Awka Judicial Division of Anambra State, the Plaintiffs (i.e. the present Respondents) claimed for themselves and on behalf of Umubelonwu of Amanuke against the Defendants (Appellants) for themselves and on behalf of Ifiteora in Urum for a declaration of title to Akpu-Ovu land and perpetual injunction against the Defendants, their servants or agents over the land. The case went to trial on an amended Statement of Claim dated the 27th day of September, 1978.

The Defendants, for reasons not clear from the records, while not disputing that they sued “for themselves and on behalf of Ifiteora in Urum”, split themselves into two for their defence, namely: 1st and 2nd Defendants hereinafter called 1st set of Defendants, and 3rd to the 6th Defendants (hereinafter called 2nd set of Defendants), each represented by a separate counsel. The case went to trial on an amended Statement of Defence dated November, 1978, and filed on 27/11/78 (for the 1st set of Defendants) and another one dated 24th November, 1978, for the 2nd set of Defendants.

The Plaintiffs’ case before the Court was that they were owners of the land in dispute from time immemorial and had been exercising diverse acts of ownership and possession thereon. They installed a water pump in it; have been farming the land by themselves and letting portions of the land for farming to Defendants’ people and others on payment of tribute.

They have been fetching water and reaping fruit crops and tapping raffia palms on the land; worshipping the juju shrine in the land – all without let or hinderance from anyone till 1966 when the Defendants refused to pay any further tribute and started claiming the land as their own. Despite intervention by neighbours who advised the Defendants to withdraw from their false position they refused and persisted, because they outnumbered the Plaintiffs. In furtherance of their claim to the land in dispute the Defendants almost simultaneously filed three separate suits – O/60/66, O/202/66 and O/14/67. For this purpose they called different portions of the Plaintiff’s Akpo-Ovu land different names, namely:

(i) Iyi-Ngwe claimed by Akanabo family of Ifiteora Urum, in suit No.0/60/66 as per their plan No. PO/E85/55;

(ii) Ukpokolo claimed by Akanato, Umuokpala, and Umuerike quarters of Ifiteora, Urum, in suit No. 0/202/66 as per their plan No. PO/E63/67; and

(iii) Iyi-Agu claimed by Akanato Umuokpala and Umuerike quarters of Ifiteora, Urum, in suit No. 0114/67 as per their plan No.PO/E131/67.

It is rather striking that although the Plaintiffs in suits Nos. 0/202/66 and 0/14/67 appear to be the same against the same Defendants (now Plaintiffs in the present suit) the then Plaintiffs found it necessary to split their cases. What is more interesting is that the Defendants, now Plaintiffs were all asserting that the subject-matter of the three suits was one piece of land.

They, in fact, filed only one plan – Plan No. MEC/285A/66 for the three cases. In the end, according to the Plaintiffs, the results of the three suits were unfavourable to the Plaintiffs therein (now Defendants/Appellants). Suit No. 0/60/66 was dismissed in the High Court which went further to find that the whole land was property of the Defendants, who, however, did not file a counter claim. Suits Nos. 0/202/66 and 0/14/67 had been consolidated and adjourned to await the result of the appeal to the Supreme Court in 0/60/66. When the Supreme Court appeal (SC.139/73) was dismissed, parties returned to the High Court for the consolidated suits. The then Defendants pressed for a dismissal; but the High Court merely struck out the suits.

The Plaintiffs in this suit also pleaded two other cases which were in respect of parts of the land in dispute outside the area of suit No. 0/60/66. They averred that in an Mbanese Native Court, criminal case No. 20 of 1945, one Madubufo Ikibe of Plaintiffs’ community was charged for going against fire control by setting fire on his Akpuovu land (part of the land in dispute) which fire damaged the Native Authority Road shade trees. One Chief Okafor Nweke of the Defendants’ Ifiteora community stated the case for the Court against Ikibe who was convicted.

They showed the stumps of these trees in their plan, No. MEC/2740/78 (Exhibit A) which they said is a replica of their plan No.MEC/285/66 used in the three 1966-67 suits. They also pleaded suit No.AA/88/73 in which the present Defendants sued the present Plaintiffs for trespass over ‘Akpokolo’ land. The Plaintiffs counter-claimed for title. The claim for title was struck out whereas the claim in trespass was remitted to the Magistrate’s Court. The Defendants trespassed on the land, they averred.

The first set of Defendants joined issues with the Plaintiffs on most of the above facts. They claimed on behalf of Akanabo Family to be owners of, and exercising various acts of possession over, the land in dispute. They denied the existence of a pump in the land in dispute. They could not admit or deny the consolidated suits (0/202/66 and 0/14/67) or the Native Court suit pleaded. They only admitted that they lost in the High Court in suit No. 0/60/66 and Sc. 139/73 in the Supreme Court. In paragraphs 16 and 17 of their Statement of Defence they stated as follows: