Siaka Isezuo & Anor V. Chief J.A. Sanni & Anor (2013)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

HELEN MORONKEJI OGUNWUMIJU, J.C.A (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

This is an appeal against the judgment of the Edo State High Court delivered by Hon. Justice A.N. Erhabor on 19/3/2012. The facts that led to this appeal are as follows:

The Respondents who were claimants at the trial court sued the 1st Appellant over a small portion of land which they claimed was part of their vast land called Anjozote, Ugbogbo Quarters, Igarra in Edo State. On the application of the 2nd Appellant, he was joined in a representative capacity by order of the trial court dated 7th February, 2007 as the 2nd defendant (now 2nd Appellant).

The Respondents’ claim against the Appellants jointly and severally as contained in paragraph 50 of the Further Amended Statement of Claim thus:

(1) A declaration that the plaintiffs are entitled to the statutory right of occupancy in the said land in dispute the dimensions and abuttals whereof are more particularly shown on the survey plan No. V.P.S/EDO5/134 dated 12/12/2005 filed by the Respondents.

(2) N5 million general damages for the defendants’ repeated and/or continuing acts of trespass to the respondents’ said land in dispute.

(3) Perpetual injunction restraining the defendants whether by themselves, their agents, servants, privies or otherwise however from continuing or repeating any acts of trespass to the plaintiffs’ said land in dispute.

The case went to trial. The Respondents who were Plaintiffs during the trial claimed to be the owners of a vast land in a place called Anjozote, Ugbogbo Quarters, Igarra, which their family, Eshimozoko family of Igarra acquired long ago through the conquest of the original owners, the Anubes, under the leadership of Anjozote, the warrior who led his family to wage a fierce war with and eventually defeated the Anubes. Upon their conquest, the Anubes fled the land for good and it consequently became the property of the Respondents’ family, Eshimozoko family of Ugbogbo Quarters of Igarra.

The Respondents led evidence at the trial that to honour and immortalize Anjozote for his gallantry, his said family, Eshimozoko, named the land after him. Hence the land became known as Anjozote land owned and controlled from the time of the conquest of the Anubes by Eshimozoko family till today under Igarra native law and custom. Recently the Appellants trespassed on a portion of the said Anjozote land resulting in the institution of the action by the Respondents.

The Plaintiffs/Respondents called ten witnesses to prove their claims. The Appellants as defendants denied the claims and called five witnesses, namely, DW 2, 3 and 4 who swore that the land in dispute is part of Ekunche land owned by the Eziari family who gave same to the 1st Appellant.

The parties tendered survey plans Exhibits C and G respectively. At the end of the trial, the parties filed their respective addresses. Judgment was entered by the learned trial judge for the Respondents against the Appellants granting the Respondents a declaration of title, injunction and N300, 000.00 damages for trespass.

Being dissatisfied with the judgment, the appellants have appealed against it by filing 10 grounds of appeal.

In the Appellants’ brief settled by Chief S.S. Obaro filed on 9/8/2012, six issues were identified for determinated as set out below:

1. Whether the failure of the learned trial judge to give any consideration to the defence (appellants) counsel’s written addresses at the close of evidence before him did not amount to denial of fair hearing and miscarriage of justice to the appellants.
2. Whether, on the pleadings and the evidence in this case, the learned trial judge was right in holding that the identity of the land in dispute (particularly the boundary between Respondents and the Appellants) was sufficiently established by the Respondents to justify the grant of declaration of title and injunction to them.
3. Whether the learned trial judge was right in granting declaratory and injunctive reliefs to the Respondents in respect of the land in dispute whose precise identity was misapprehended by the Respondents and the court and not pleaded and proved by consistent and credible evidence.
4. Whether the learned trial judge was right in holding that the respondents proved their root of title i.e. the traditional history of their ancestors’ acquisition of the land in dispute by conquest of the original owners thereof and the customary law regulating such acquisition, as pleaded by them and as required by law, to entitle them to declaration of title to the land in dispute.
5. Whether the learned trial judge was right when he suo motu raised the issue as to the respondents’ ownership of adjacent or adjoining lands to the land in dispute and, without inviting counsel to address him thereon, drew the inference, or came to the conclusion, that the respondents owned the land in dispute.
6. Whether, on the facts of this case, the respondents were entitled to the award of any damages at all or to the award of N300,000.00 general damages made by the learned trial judge to the respondents for trespass.

The Appellants also filed a reply brief on 9/4/2013. The Respondents’ brief was filed on 19/9/2012 and deemed filed on 26/3/2012. It was settled by C.D. Bello Esq. Therein the following issues were identified for consideration by this court.