In the High Court of Bendel State, the plaintiff, on behalf of the Arumona family of Aboh, claimed from the three defendants

Pleadings were filed and amended by both parties and the plaintiff filed a plan, which was admitted in evidence by consent. The surveyor who prepared it was not called to give evidence as it was common ground that the identity of the lakes was not in issue.

The parties called evidence. The plaintiff himself and another member of his family (P.W.1) gave traditional evidence. In addition, he called three other witnesses who were not natives of Aboh. The 1st and 3rd defendants testified and in addition called one witness who was a member of the Obi of Aboh Council. Both plaintiff and defendants are natives of Aboh and its paramount ruler is the Obi of Aboh, although the 1st P.W. in his testimony said all the natives recognised him as such excepting members of his Arumona family.

The learned trial judge found that the traditional evidence given by the plaintiff and his witnesses was inconclusive and unconvincing and the evidence as to acts of user, equally unreliable. He found that the plaintiff failed to prove that his ancestor, Eze Iwerie, was the first person to settle on the land on which the lakes are situated or that members of his family were in exclusive possession of the land around them. He found that the surrounding land belonged to the entire Aboh people and reserved for the Obi of Aboh, the traditional head of the Aboh people, has the right of exclusive use of all the nine lakes and that he rightfully permitted the defendants to fish in them, including the Oforboh lake. In support of his findings, he found that the then Obi of Aboh and one other Aboh native, on behalf of the Aboh people in 1950, successfully prosecuted a suit to assert the title of the Aboh people to own and possess the Oforboh lake against one Joseph Okuguni, a native of Igbuku, who claimed its ownership and right to fish in it. On those findings, he dismissed the plaintiff’s claims.

Plaintiff appealed to the Court of Appeal, which reversed the decision and allowed the appeal. The Court of Appeal also set aside the trial judge’s finding of fact and substituted their own findings on the evidence.

The defendants appealed to the Supreme Court.