Prince George Iloka V. Peter Chike Edokwe & Ors (2016)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

EMMANUEL AKOMAYE AGIM, J.C.A.

On 22-9-1997, the appellant filed a claim and caused a writ of summons to issue on the same day against Simon Sunday Edokwe the father of the respondents in the High Court of Anambra State at Nnewi commencing suit No HN/138/97 and claiming for-
a. A declaration that the plaintiff in possession is entitled to a statutory right of occupancy over the said land in dispute.
b. sum of N1,000,000.00 (one million naira) being damages for trespass.
c. Perpetual injunction restraining the defendant his servants, workmen, privies or agents from any further acts of trespass or in any manner whatsoever from interfering with the plaintiff?s right of occupancy and possession of his land.?

On 8-7-1998 Simon Sunday Edokwe the father of the respondents filed a claim and caused a writ of summons to issue on the same date against the appellant herein commencing suit No. HN/105/98 in the same Anambra State High Court at Nnewi claiming for-
?a. A declaration that the plaintiff, as the person in possession is entitled to the statutory right of occupancy in respect of the said piece or parcel of land situate at

1

Okpuno-ebenator Area of Anambra State, within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court; more particularly delineated and verged Red (which also embraces the area verged PINK) on the plaintiff?s survey plan.
b. N5,000,000.00 (five million naira) being general damages for the said trespass, and
c. Perpetual injunction restraining the defendant, his agents and privies, servants or his successors-in-title and assigns from further acts of trespass or from further interfering with the plaintiff?s right over the said piece or parcel of land in possession of the plaintiff. Dated at NNEWI this 20th day of October,1998.?

Upon the death of Simon Sunday Edokwe, the respondents as his children, substituted him as defendants in suit No HN/138/97 and as plaintiffs in suit No HN/105/98 by order of the trial court on 14-5-2001. Both suits were consolidated by Order of Court. The plaintiff in suit No HN/138/97 was made plaintiff in the consolidated suits. The plaintiffs in suit No HN/105/98 were made defendants in the consolidated suits.

The parties amended their respective pleadings several times. The appellants adduced evidence in support of their case

2

through PW1, PW2, PW3 and PW4. The respondents adduced evidence in support of their case through DW1, DW2, DW3, DW4 and DW5. After conclusion of evidence and addresses by both sides, the trial Court on 27-7-2004 rendered judgment dismissing the appellants claim in suit No HN/138/97 and granted the reliefs claimed for by the respondents in suit No HN/105/98.

Dissatisfied with this judgment, the appellants commenced this appeal No CA/E/154/2007 by filing a notice of appeal dated 5-8-2004. The date of filing is not indicated in the certified copy of the notice contained in pages 373 to 375 of the record of this appeal. The said notice of appeal contains four grounds of appeal and was amended by the Order of this court made on 18-4-2013. The amended notice of appeal contains 7 grounds of appeal. Both sides have filed, exchanged and adopted their respective briefs as follows- appellant?s brief, respondent?s brief and appellant?s reply brief.

The appellant?s brief raised the following issues for determination-
1. Was the lower right in delivering one judgment in the consolidated suits Nos. HN/138/97 and HN/105/98?
?2. Was the PW4 a tenant of the

3

appellant or the respondents? father in respect of the land in dispute
3. Was the learned trial judge right to have allowed PW4 who was merely subpoenaed to tender documents in the proceeding to be cross-examined extensively.
4. From the facts and circumstances of this case has the appellant not established his title to the land in dispute?
5. Was the learned trial judge justified in granting the land in dispute to the respondents?

The respondent?s brief raised the following issues for determination-
1. Whether the appellant proved his root of title to the land in dispute
2. Whether the learned trial judge was (not) right in allowing PW4 (Clement Obiaga) to be cross-examined and (thereby) making use of the answers/facts elicited during cross-examination in the determination of the suit and whether the judge?s evaluation of same was prejudicial to the appellant.
3. Whether the learned trial judge adequately considered and evaluated all the evidence led by both parties before he (The learned trial judge) delivered his judgment.?