Uchegbule Amadi & Ors. V. Ononiwu Nnadi Nwanyinkwo & Ors. (2012)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

HARUNA M. TSAMMANI, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

This is an appeal against the judgment of S. W. Chianakwalam; J of the Imo State High Court, sitting at Owerri in Suit No: HOW/146/76 delivered on the 24th day of January, 1986.

The Appellants as representatives of Umuadim and Umuroka communities took out a writ of summons against the Respondents also as representatives of Umuduru and Umuohua communities, over a piece of land situate at Uzoagba within the Owerri Judicial Division. By the Suit which was instituted on the 22/11/1976, the Appellants as Plaintiffs claimed the following reliefs:

1. Declaration of title to that piece or parcel of land known as and called “Uhu Anwutama” otherwise known as and called “Uhu Umuagwu.”
2. N50,000.00 (fifty thousand naira) being general damages for trespass.
3. Possession of the said land.
4. Perpetual injunction restraining the defendants, their servants and agents from entering the said land again.

Both parties filed and tendered plans in evidence at the hearing. The Appellants’ survey plan No. IM/GA 1493177 was admitted in evidence as Exhibit A, while the Respondents’ plan No. PO/IMO226/77, was admitted as Exhibit C.

The Appellant’ claim was that, the land originally belonged to their ancestors, a long time ago. That the Appellants’ ancestors then transferred possession of the land to the ancestors of the Respondents, for them to farm thereon only. They contended that the transfer was neither a pledge nor a sale, but a grant from their ancestor to the ancestors of the Respondents for farming only. Previous Court judgment was pleaded and tendered by them, and which judgment was admitted as Exhibit B.

The Respondents did not deny, but admitted that the land in dispute originally belonged to the Appellants’ ancestors. They however contended that, the Appellants’ ancestors had sold and transferred land in dispute to their ancestors, not as a grant for farming, but by way of a sale. That the transaction took place before the advent of western civilization in their area. The Respondents also relied on same Native Court judgment pleaded by the Appellants.

At the hearing the 2nd Appellant testified for the other Appellants and called three other witnesses who testified as P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.3 respectively. The 2nd Respondent testified for the Respondents, and no other witness was called by them. After the addresses of counsel, the learned trial judge evaluated the evidence led by the parties, and in a considered judgment delivered on the 14/01/1986, dismissed the Plaintiffs/Appellants claims entirely.

It is against that decision that the Appellants filed their original Notice and Grounds of Appeal, dated the 12/3/86 and filed the same day. Ultimately, this appeal was heard on the Appellants Further Amended Grounds of Appeal, dated 04/2/1991 and deemed filed the 27/3/92. The Grounds of Appeal without their particulars are reproduced hereunder:

“1. The learned trial Judge misdirected himself on point of law and on the facts when he held as follows:

“The plaintiffs are not relieved of the duty to prove the identity of the land by mere production of the record of proceedings, Exhibit B, without the plan used in the case and relating the area in that plan to the identity of the area claimed in this suit.

Plaintiff did not produce the plan. Neither they nor their witnesses gave evidence relevant to the plan. This created a vacuum in their case.”

2. The learned trial judge erred in law when he failed to direct his mind properly or at all to Exhibit “B” in these proceedings and consequently failed to observe that the judgment of the Native court at page 15 of Exhibit “B” is valid and subsisting and that the subsequent judgment of Mr. Cook, A. D. O. at page 16 of Exhibit “B” and that of the Native Court at page 19 of Exhibit B are both ultra vires and void of no effect, for want of jurisdiction.
3. The learned trial judge erred in law and on the facts when he relied on the void review of Mr. Cook as valid and subsisting.
4. The learned trial judge misdirected himself in law and on the facts when he held as follows:

“Plaintiff acceded the defendants were at all times material to this case in possession of the land in dispute. The unproven allegation that their ancestors allowed the defendants’ ancestors to farm the land (an allegation which I do not believe or accept as satisfactory or conclusive) did not absolve them of the responsibility of proving that the defendants are not the owners of the land in dispute…if there is a dispute as to which of the two persons is in possession, the presumption is that the person having title to the land is in lawful possession… The plaintiffs failed to prove better title to the land than the defendants.”

5. The Judgment is unreasonable and unwarranted and cannot be supported having regard to the weight of evidence.

As required by the Rules of this court, the parties filed and exchanged briefs of argument. The original Appellants’ brief of argument is dated the 04/2/1991 and filed the 05/2/1991. An Amended Appellants’ Brief of Argument which is undated was filed on the 06/10/2008. Similarly, the Respondents filed an original Brief of Argument on the 23/12/87. However, an Amended Respondents’ Brief of Argument dated the 13/10/08, was filed on the 15/10/2008.

The Appellants nominated five (5) issues for determination from the five (5) Grounds of Appeal. These are: