Paul Odimegwa & Ors V. Daniel Ibezim & Ors (2019)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

AMINA ADAMU AUGIE, J.S.C.

The Parties, who are Members of the same “Umudim Ogbujiasili Kindred of Ezeannaja-Amada Village, Oraukwu were fighting over a piece of land known as and called “Obi-be-Dim Ogbujiasili’: The Respondents, for themselves and on behalf of Members of the “Kindred, as a body, sued their “cousins and descendants of a common ancestor” [Appellants] at the Anambra State High Court.

The Appellants, as Defendants at the trial Court, did not file a Statement of Defence, rather they raised a Preliminary Objection by way of Motion on Notice wherein they prayed the trial Court for:

An order of [the] Court dismissing the above case on the ground of incompetence and non-disclosure of a reasonable cause of action.

They argued at the trial Court that since the Respondents brought the Suit representing both Parties, there are no Parties because “a Plaintiff cannot sue himself; and that for it to have jurisdiction, “there must be a dispute between persons of different interest but the quarrel is between the same person and the [trial] Court cannot intervene where someone is quarreling with himself.”

1

In its Ruling, the trial Court, relying upon Order 3 Rule 1 of the High Court Rules, which says “any person in whom a relief exists may sue as Plaintiff and any person against whom the relief exists, may be sued as Defendant”: held as follows on this Issue –

The Plaintiffs have sued for themselves and on behalf of Umudim- Ogbujiasili Kindred of Ezannaja Amadi Village of Oraukwu, against the named Defendants, who though members of the said Kindred, had gone into the “Obi” as claimed, which from their pleadings, belong to all the members’ family, demolished same and looted the content therein. From the said Pleadings, which is the focal pointing this Application, a right to a relief, obviously, exist in the Kindred as a body against the named Defendants — The said Order 3 Rule 1 does not support the submission of [Defendants].

It also held that “there is a cause of action by the Plaintiffs against the named Defendants”, and concluded as follows in its Ruling –

This Objection falls and the Defendants are hereby ordered, pursuant to Order 10 Rule 1(3) of the High Court Rules – – to file their Statement of Defence and Plan, if necessary, within 60 Days hereof

2

Dissatisfied, the Appellants appealed to the Court of Appeal and, in its Judgment delivered on 23/11/2006, the Court of Appeal held:

The view canvassed for the Appellants that the Respondents sued themselves is not acceptable. These days, in the determination of cases, a Court aims always at achieving substantial justice for the Parties and, therefore, in the exercise of judicial discretion, the primary objective of the Court must be to attain substantial justice. This is a land matter and – – it is both a fundamental and elementary principle of the administration of justice that whenever it is possible to determine a case on its merit, the Court should not succumb to the temptation of hastily determining it in limine. What it all means is that every effort must painstakingly be made to do justice. A snappy short cut decision, bereft of an examination of the merits of the case, often settles nothing but rather exacerbates the conflict between the Parties. In view of the foregoing, coupled with the fact that specific allegations have been made against the Defendants, it could not be presumed that the allegations

3