Ogana Ikade & Anor V. Chief Barnabas Ikong Obok (2012)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

UZO I. NDUKWE-ANYANWU, J.C.A (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

This is an appeal against the decision of the High Court of Cross River State sitting in Ogoja delivered on 14th October, 2010.

Briefly, the Respondent as claimant in the Court below claimed that in November, 2007 he fulfilled the Requisite customs and traditions and acquired the land in dispute from Wanele Community in Wanikande, Yala Local Government Area of Cross River State. He also claimed that the 1st Appellant as defendant trespassed on his land.

The elders of Wanikande intervened and affirmed the ownership of the Respondent. On 3rd August, 2009 when he was preparing to mould blocks and start building on the disputed land, the 1st Appellant encroached on the land again.

The Respondent, thereafter, took out a suit in the Customary Court NO.NUDC/20/2009 against the Appellant. Upon being served with the Summons, the Appellants made a report to the Area Command of the Nigeria police Force Ogoja who arrested and detained of the Respondent and one Francis Odey, for malicious damage. They were both later released.

The Respondent thereafter filed this suit in the High court Ogoja on 20th August, 2009. After a full trial, the trial Judge delivered his considered judgment.

Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a notice and 3 grounds of Appeal. The Appellant filed his Appellant’s brief on 17th January, 2011 and articulated only one issue for determination as follows:

“Whether, having regard to the evidence on record, the learned trial Judge was right when he entered judgment for the Claimant/Respondent, instead of the Defendants/Appellants (Ground 1, 2 and 3).”

The Respondent filed his brief on 30th March, 2011 and was deemed properly filed and served on 28th June, 2011. The Respondent articulated 2 issues for determination namely:

1. Whether there was any contest to the title of the Respondent to the land in dispute such as would require him to prove his grantor’s root of title.
2. Whether there was any piece/parcel of land with clearly ascertainable boundaries and proved on record, such as entitles the Appellants to a declaration of title thereto.”

The lone issue articulated by the Appellants is very general in nature. I would therefore, adopt the 2 issues articulated by the Respondent in the determination of this appeal.

ISSUE 1:

“whether, having regard to the evidence on record, the learned trial Judge was right when he entered judgment for the Claimant/Respondent, instead of the Defendants/Appellants (Ground 1, 2 and Learned counsel to the Appellants, Patrick Eka, who settled the brief submitted that the declaration of title by the learned trial Judge in favour of the Respondent is without foundation. In an action for declaration of title to land, the onus is on the plaintiff to prove his case until this duty is discharged, the defendant has no duty to discharge as none is shifted thereto, Counsel stated the five methods a party may prove his title to land in an action for declaration of title. They are viz:

“(i) Proof by traditional history or traditional evidence:

(ii) Proof by grant or the production of document of title.