Olum Ogba & Ors V. Israel J. Onwuzo & Anor (2000)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

JAMES OGENYI OGEBE, J.C.A.

The respondents sued the appellants in the High Court of Rivers State holding at Ahoada for a declaration of customary right of occupancy to a piece of land known and called “El Aga osumini’, trespass and perpetual injunction restraining the appellants from further acts of trespass on the land. The respondents amended their statement of claim and the appellants filed a statement of defence which was never amended. The respondents based their claim on the land on traditional history and various acts of ownership.

The appellants denied the alleged acts of possession by the respondents and claimed ownership of the land.

The respondents called 6 witnesses including a licensed surveyor to establish their claim.

The appellants called 7 witnesses in aid of their defence.

The traditional history given by either side could not conclusively prove the ownership of the land and the trial court had to resort to acts of recent ownership to determine the owner of the land.

The trial judge reviewed the evidence given by both sides extensively and came to the conclusion that the respondents had proved their claim and were entitled to the reliefs sought. He therefore granted the reliefs claimed by the respondents.

Dissatisfied with that decision the appellants have appealed to this court and the learned counsel for them filed a brief of argument and identified two issues for determination as follows:

“(1) whether the court below was right in its conclusion from the evidence adduced at the trial that the Respondents proved that they are the persons entitled to the customary right of occupancy of the land in dispute having regard to the credible evidence in the case in respect of

(a) traditional evidence relating to the settlement of the land in dispute;

(b) acts of ownership on the land in dispute;

(c) rejection of the evidence of Owho holders;

(d) the contradiction in very material particulars between the evidence led by the Respondents and their pleadings in addition to reliance on matters not pleaded; and

(e) rejection of the evidence of DW7.