md←→ previous / next
Before Their Lordships
MASSOUD ABDULRAHMAN OREDOLA Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
ITA GEORGE MBABA Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
TUNDE OYEBANJI AWOTOYE Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
ITA GEORGE MBABA Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
TUNDE OYEBANJI AWOTOYE Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
Between
PAUL IHEDIOHA Appellant(s)
AND
1. MR. SUNDAY AGWALEMERE
(For himself and as the head of Agwalemere Family of Ezialiachara Amaokwe Amiyi
Autonomous Community Isuikwuato Local Government Area, Abia State)
2. AIRTEL NETWORKS LIMITED Respondent(s)
…………………….A…………………….
ITA GEORGE MBABA, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): This is an appeal against the decision of Abia State High Court in Suit No. HS/11/2012, delivered on 16/9/2014 by Hon. Justice Obisike Oji, wherein the Learned Trial Judge gave judgment to the Plaintiff (now 1st Respondent) as follows:
it is:
(1) Declared that the Plaintiff is entitled to the Right of Occupancy over that piece of land at Iheagu, situate at Amaokwe Amiyi in Isuikwuato L.G.A and more clearly delineated in Survey Plan No. MCCO/ABD003/2013, dated 22/01/2013 and therein verged GREEN which is Exhibit E in this proceedings.
(2) The transaction over this land between the 1st and 2nd defendant (sic) is hereby declared null and void.
(3) The defendants shall pay the sum of One Hundred Thousand Naira (N100,000.00) to the Plaintiff being general damages for their trespass to the said land of the Plaintiff.
(4) The defendants are hereby restrained by themselves, their heirs, agents, successors in title and servants from further trespass into Iheagu land of the Plaintiff.
(5) The defendants shall pay cost of this Suit to the Plaintiff assessed at Twenty Thousand Naira (N20,000.00). (See page 348 349 of the Records of Appeal).
Dissatisfied with the above decision, Appellant (who was 2nd Defendant at the trial) filed Notice of Appeal on 12/11/14, as per pages 388 390 of the Records, disclosing 3 grounds of Appeal. Appellant filed Brief of Argument on 4/10/16, which was deemed duly filed on 27/9/17. Appellant distilled two Issues for the determination of the Appeal, as follows:
(1) Whether on the state of pleadings and evidence adduced, the trial Court was right in holding that the 1st Respondent (Claimant at the trial Court) proved traditional history of acts of continuous exclusive possession leaving no gap? (Grounds 1 and 2)
(2) Whether the trial Court properly evaluated the evidence placed before it during the trial to arrive at a fair and just decision for all the parties. (Ground 3).
The 1st Respondent filed his brief on 15/1/18 and the same was deemed duly filed on 1/2/18. He adopted the Issues as distilled by the Appellant for the determination of the appeal. The 2nd Respondent filed no brief.
Arguing the Appeal, on 16/5/18, Appellants Counsel, Ngozi K. Uzoma Esq., (who settled the brief), on Issue one, said the 1st Respondent did not prove his case as required by law, to be entitled to the reliefs he sought. He submitted that, in an action for declaration of title to land, the Plaintiff must succeed on the strength of his own case, not on the weakness of the defence. He relied on the case of Ekanem Vs Akpan (1991) 8 NWLR (Pt. 211) 616; Kodilinye Vs Odu (1935) 2 WACA 336 at 337 338; Onwugbufor Vs Okoye (1996) NWLR (Pt. 424) 225; Shittu Vs Fashawe (2005) 14 NWLR (Pt. 946) 671; Eze Vs Atasie (2000) 10 NWLR (Pt. 676) 450.
Counsel also relied on the case of Ojoh Vs Kamalu (2005) 18 NWLR (Pt. 958) 523; Nwosu Vs Udeaja (1990) 1 NWLR (Pt. 125) 188; Kyari Vs Alkali (2001) 11 NWLR (Pt. 724), on the five different ways of proving title to land and said that the Plaintiff failed in his bid to establish his claims at the trial by traditional history which he relied on. Counsel further relied onBalogun Vs Akanji (1988) 1 NWLR (Pt. 70) 301, on evidence of ownership by traditional history, and added that, a party is not bound to plead and prove more than one root of title, to succeed, but
(1) Declared that the Plaintiff is entitled to the Right of Occupancy over that piece of land at Iheagu, situate at Amaokwe Amiyi in Isuikwuato L.G.A and more clearly delineated in Survey Plan No. MCCO/ABD003/2013, dated 22/01/2013 and therein verged GREEN which is Exhibit E in this proceedings.
(2) The transaction over this land between the 1st and 2nd defendant (sic) is hereby declared null and void.
(3) The defendants shall pay the sum of One Hundred Thousand Naira (N100,000.00) to the Plaintiff being general damages for their trespass to the said land of the Plaintiff.
(4) The defendants are hereby restrained by themselves, their heirs, agents, successors in title and servants from further trespass into Iheagu land of the Plaintiff.
(5) The defendants shall pay cost of this Suit to the Plaintiff assessed at Twenty Thousand Naira (N20,000.00). (See page 348 349 of the Records of Appeal).
Dissatisfied with the above decision, Appellant (who was 2nd Defendant at the trial) filed Notice of Appeal on 12/11/14, as per pages 388 390 of the Records, disclosing 3 grounds of Appeal. Appellant filed Brief of Argument on 4/10/16, which was deemed duly filed on 27/9/17. Appellant distilled two Issues for the determination of the Appeal, as follows:
(1) Whether on the state of pleadings and evidence adduced, the trial Court was right in holding that the 1st Respondent (Claimant at the trial Court) proved traditional history of acts of continuous exclusive possession leaving no gap? (Grounds 1 and 2)
(2) Whether the trial Court properly evaluated the evidence placed before it during the trial to arrive at a fair and just decision for all the parties. (Ground 3).
The 1st Respondent filed his brief on 15/1/18 and the same was deemed duly filed on 1/2/18. He adopted the Issues as distilled by the Appellant for the determination of the appeal. The 2nd Respondent filed no brief.
Arguing the Appeal, on 16/5/18, Appellants Counsel, Ngozi K. Uzoma Esq., (who settled the brief), on Issue one, said the 1st Respondent did not prove his case as required by law, to be entitled to the reliefs he sought. He submitted that, in an action for declaration of title to land, the Plaintiff must succeed on the strength of his own case, not on the weakness of the defence. He relied on the case of Ekanem Vs Akpan (1991) 8 NWLR (Pt. 211) 616; Kodilinye Vs Odu (1935) 2 WACA 336 at 337 338; Onwugbufor Vs Okoye (1996) NWLR (Pt. 424) 225; Shittu Vs Fashawe (2005) 14 NWLR (Pt. 946) 671; Eze Vs Atasie (2000) 10 NWLR (Pt. 676) 450.
Counsel also relied on the case of Ojoh Vs Kamalu (2005) 18 NWLR (Pt. 958) 523; Nwosu Vs Udeaja (1990) 1 NWLR (Pt. 125) 188; Kyari Vs Alkali (2001) 11 NWLR (Pt. 724), on the five different ways of proving title to land and said that the Plaintiff failed in his bid to establish his claims at the trial by traditional history which he relied on. Counsel further relied onBalogun Vs Akanji (1988) 1 NWLR (Pt. 70) 301, on evidence of ownership by traditional history, and added that, a party is not bound to plead and prove more than one root of title, to succeed, but
…………………….B…………………….
Continue reading IHEDIOHA v. AGWALEMERE & ANOR
You have read the opening. Unlock the full library once and it stays unlocked - one payment, no subscription, the same library as the app.
- All 725 Laws of the Federation, A to Z
- 916 full judgments and 269 case collections
- 8,046 legal principles and 124 rules of court
- 343 drafts, with the Draft Builder
- The Law Dictionary - 31,442 terms
- Law School notes and 2,082 MCQs
Every Act, case collection and principle beginning with A, B or C is free to read in full, without unlocking - the same boundary as the Android app.