The Plaintiffs and Defendants are natives of Obosi. Both parties are members of Umuabua family but the Defendants belong to Umu - Ademe sub - family of Abua. The Plaintiffs brought the action in a representative capacity against the Defendants also in a representative capacity claiming that the land in dispute which they call "Umuru" is owned communally by both parties through inheritance. The defendants denied this claim and asserted that they owned the land absolutely. The plaintiffs trace the occupation of the land to Ezuga, their common ancestor, who hailed from Ire Village.

According to the traditional history of Obosi, an Umuru man was found guilty of having committed adultery and was asked to pay a penalty for the crime (which was yams). When he presented the yams, the quantity and quality were found to be unsatisfactory. The man became enraged and he killed the Eze and his pregnant daughter. Fearing the repercussions that would follow the killings, the man and his kinsmen decided to relocate from Umuru to another place. Ezuga (also known as Dezuga) moved in to occupy the land left by the fleeing Umuru people and after his death the land was then partitioned among his four children namely Chiakwelu, Abua, Odogwu (also known as Nyi) and Oliobi. The Plaintiffs claim that both themselves and the Defendants are descendants of Abua and the portion of land which Abua inherited was never partitioned between his children; hence it is now communal land belonging to the parties.

The Defendants' version is that even though they and the Plaintiffs are descendants from Abua, the ancestor did not inherit any land. They claimed that Abua had two sons namely: Nwokebuahi and Oradusi. Oradusi in turn had four children namely: Emokamobi, Okolonkwo, Umunna and Ademe. It was Ademe their forefather who deforested the land. They the Defendants are the members of Umu - Ademe kindred in Umuabua family and so are exclusively entitled to the said land.

The suit was heard on the Amended Pleadings of the Plaintiffs dated 15th January, 1998 but filed on 12th February, 1998 (see pages 95 - 102 of the records) and the Further Amended Statement of Defence dated 29th January, 1998 and filed on 30th January, 1998 (see pages 49 - 57 of the records). The Plaintiffs called four witnesses while six witnesses testified for the Defendants. Several exhibits were tendered. In the judgement delivered on 17th December, 1998, the learned trial Judge before non - suiting the plaintiffs said:

"I found it difficult to understand and appreciate the two main grounds relied upon by the plaintiffs and also by the defendants in this suit for their claim to the land in dispute as shown on exhibit ‘A’, thereon verged pink or as shown on exhibit ‘B’, therein verged red. I have deliberately refrained myself from making any specific findings of fact on the evidence proffered and adduced by each party" (See page 2 of the records)

Both parties were dissatisfied and appealed against the order of non - suit. The Defendants appeal was treated as the main appeal. They complained that there was failure by the plaintiffs to plead and testify on the line of succession from the original founder to the plaintiffs and the evidence of the plaintiffs' witnesses which were contradictory resulting in serious internal conflicts regarding the traditional ownership of the disputed land.

The Court of Appeal Enugu delivered its judgement on 31st of May, 2005 allowing the appeal on the issue of non - suit since the parties were not invited to address the trial Judge before the order was made. It went further to invoke section 16 of the Court of Appeal Act to evaluate the evidence and the pleadings before the trial court and arrived at the conclusion that the Plaintiffs failed to plead how the land passed through successive owners to them and held that with this failure, there was no way that the burden of proving exclusive ownership of the disputed land could have shifted to the appellants. The Court held that the respondents' claim was bound to fail because of the inadequacy in their pleadings. The Court below dismissed the cross - appeal with N10,000.00 costs to the appellants.

The Plaintiffs have now appealed to this Court.