The traditional evidence produced at the hearing shows that the two com¬munities in this case came into existence as the result of migrations by people either from the ancient Kingdom of Benin direct or from Akure or Ife in the Yoruba Kingdom through Benin. The respondents herein come under the category of those who came from Benin while the appellants represent the second group. While the Benin immigrants now have Ibo as their sole language, the Yoruba im¬migrants speak both Yoruba and Ibo. There is evidence that the descendants of the Yoruba immigrants refer to themselves as well as their own brand of Yoruba dialect as Olukumi. The Olukumi settlements as revealed by the evidence are:

Ukwunzu, Ugbodu. Ugboba, Ubulubu, Ogodo and Idumuogo. It was also not seriously contested that Obomkpa is one of the 9 settlements that constitute the Eze-chima Clan, the others being:- Obior, Onicha-Ugbo, Issele-Uku, Onicha-Ukwu, Ezi, Onicha-Olona, Issele-Mkpitima and Issele-Azagba. A common factor in the folklore of the parties is the man Anagba, the herbalist or magician. Each side in seeking to establish prior settlement of the area in dispute introduced Anagba into the case in its own peculiar way, assigning to him a role at a particular point in time.

One inescapable conclusion from the welter of testimony tendered is that the Ezechima settlements and the Olukumi settlements had been in existence for up-wards of two centuries.

The learned trial judge (Moje Bare J.) after having heard all the evidence re¬corded a Judgment in which he dismissed the respondents' claim for title and in¬junction and made an order of non-suit in respect of the claim for damages for trespass. Both parties appealed against the decision of the court of first instance, the respondents appealing against the dismissal of their claim for title and injunc¬tion, while the appellants appealed against the order of non-suit.

The Court of Appeal after entertaining argument from counsel on the grounds of appeal filed before it, in a unanimous judgment dismissed the respondents' claim for damages for trespass, thus setting aside the lower court's order of non¬-suit. The court then reversed the lower court and pronounced a decree of title and injunction in favour of the respondents in regard to the land in dispute.

The appellants being dissatisfied with the decision of the Court of Appeal have now appealed to this court