The case of the plaintiffs in the original suit was that the land in dispute formed part of land that had from time immemorial been owned by, and been in the possession of, their family. Some fifty years prior to September, 1972 (when they filed their statement of claim), their fathers lived in a place called Uhuamantu while the defendants' father lived at Uhuawo, both places in Ogbaku. The relationship between him and his brothers became strained to the point where they chased him out of the community. Having no place to live he went across to Uhuamantu where he approached the fathers of the plaintiffs for help. The kind-hearted men of Uhuamantu took pity on him and allowed him a portion of their Uhuamantu land to settle on. There he lived and erected his historic storeyed building.

Some ten years afterwards the plaintiffs' fathers moved to their present location leaving the defendants' father at Uhuamantu. Another ten years passed, then the defendants' father, feeling rather abandoned, as everybody in Uhuamantu had moved out, again approached the plaintiff's fathers in exercise of their rights of ownership and possession, allowed their stranger two separate portions of land within the disputed Ala Idime Akwaoguru on pledge for #1 per portion as was the custom of the people. One portion was to be used as living quarters while the other was for farming purposes. To complete the pledge transaction customary rites wee performed. These rites consisted in the slaughtering of sheep and fowls, sprinkling their blood on the ground, and the pouring of wine in the presence of other people. The father of the 1st and 4th defendants brought along with him the fathers of the original 2nd and 3rd defendants.

As I pointed out earlier on, the 3rd defendant became the 2nd defendant following the death of the original 2nd defendant.

Earlier and in exercise of their rights of ownership the plaintiffs' fathers had made a pledge of part of the land to one Azi Nwadike for #1. The plaintiffs redeemed this pledge in 1961. The plaintiffs brought the matter of the pledge portions of the land before the amalas in that year. The amalas found as a fact that the land to the plaintiffs people and that the two portions held by the defendants people had only been pledged to them. They ruled that the defendants' people and Azi Nwadike should accept the redemption fee of #1 for each portion held by them. Azi readily complied, but not the defendants. Rather they started erecting permanent structures, and generally laying claims to the land. The plaintiffs made another attempt in 1972 at redeeming the pledged portions of land. The resistance to the attempt was the immediate cause of the proceedings now on appeal before this court.

The plaintiffs repeated in their statement of claim the reliefs they had endorsed on their writ, except that they now call the land Ala Idim Akwaogunu instead of Ala Idime Akwaoguru. Also, now they put the annual value of the land at #5.

For their part the case of the defendants as made out in their statement of defence in the original suit and in their statement of claim in their cross-action was that they have always owned, and had possession of, the land in dispute from time immemorial and have always exercised acts of ownership until the plaintiffs' people brought interference in 1961. As an instance of the exercise of the right of ownership of the land in dispute they pleaded the fact that one of their brothers had pledged a portion of it to one Mbezi, the sister of the 2nd plaintiff's father. They redeemed this portion of land in 1961 by depositing the sum of #3(which Mbezi had paid as pledge money) with Chief Ogbo Akalado for onward transmission to the plaintiffs.

As will be seen later on, this Chief Ogbo Akalado testified for the plaintiff's in the original suit as PW3.

With respect to the portions of land that the plaintiffs alleged that their people pledged to Azi Nwadike the defendants averred that it was rather one of their people called Nwokediko, and not the plaintiffs, who made the pledge. On the proceedings before the Amalas in 1961 they pleaded that the Amalas decided that the 2nd plaintiff's father should swear an oath affirming that the land belonged to him.

On the motion of the defendants in the original suit and against the opposition of the plaintiffs' in that suit, both suits were consolidated on the order of the court. The plaintiffs in the original suit continued to be referred to as defendants.

At the hearing of the consolidated suits the 2nd plaintiff testified as PWI. He testified on behalf of himself and the 1st plaintiff. Four other witnesses testify for them.

The 1st defendant testified as DWI. Three other witnesses testified for them. Both counsel addressed the Court viva voce.

In a reserved judgment the learned trial judge allowed the claims of the plaintiffs in their entirety and dismissed the defendants' claim in the cross-action, also in their entirety.

Being dissatisfied with the decision of the trial court, the appellants appealed.