Mr. Christopher Onwumere gave facts of his claim against the appellants, in his evidence in chief, before the trial High Court. He told the court that he and his ancestors have been owners in possession of the land in dispute from time immemorial. I may pause here to explain that there is no dispute between the parties over the identity of the entire land which is the subject of this litigation. The two survey plans, Exhibit A and B, which were respectively produced by the respondents and the appellants agree on all essential details. The parties only differ in the names which each party described the land in dispute. The appellant gave the name of the land as "Ala Emenaugha.

The respondent told the court that the land in dispute is situate in Umuoke Oweere Nkwoji, in Nkwerre/Isu Local Government Area. He called six witnesses to prove his claim. The appellants, who were defendants at the trial High Court, claimed that the land in dispute was founded by their ancestors from whom they derived their name -Umudi meaning the children of Dii. They called the land in dispute "Ohia Ajimiri" meaning bush reserved for Ajimiri juju. The appellants claimed both the ownership of the land and the Ajimiri juju which was worshipped by all the neighbouring people in the area. It is their case that only people of Umudi descesdant could become chief priest of the juju. They explained further, that in the olden days fugitive offenders who ran to and surrendered to Ajimiri juju were sacrificed to the juju and thereafter they became "Osu-free servants" of the juju and automatically were freed from punishment. Obinike village, near Eke market, was set aside for the settlement of such juju servants. Hence the occupation of the respondents' people of obineke village.

Seven witnesses testified for the defence and, in a well considered judgment, the learned trial judge, Johnson J., found that the respondent had failed to prove his claim and it was accordingly dismissed. On appeal, the Court of Appeal, Enugu Division, allowed the appeal and, in an apparent contradiction, the court of appeal declared that the respondent was entitled to both customary and statutory right of occupancy over the land.

The appellants were dissatisfied with this decision, hence this appeal to the Supreme Court.