Disable Preloader

CaseLaw

Anyanwu V. Mbara (1992) CLR 6(b) (SC)

Judgement delivered on June 15th 1992

Brief

  • Evaluation of evidence
  • Burden of proof in civil cases
  • Pleadings
  • Locus in quo
  • Registrable instrument
  • Adversary system of adjudication
  • S. 45 Evidence Act

Facts

One James Kamalu Mbara had, in a suit commenced by a writ of summons, sued Nwogu Anyanwu for the following relief:

  • a
    Declaration of title to the parcel and piece of land known as and called “NWAOKPU” situate at Libei Umunahu, Uratta in Owerri Judicial Division with annual value of (Ten Pound) E10.
  • b
    200 pounds damages for trespass unto the said land.
  • c
    An injunction permanently to restrain the defendant, his servants, agents, and or workmen from further interference upon the said land.

The appellant was later substituted for the defendant and the respondents for the plaintiff, the original parties having died. The learned trial Judge in his judgment held that although the claim before the court was for a declaration of title followed by consequential reliefs yet,

“At a very careful and close examination of the facts of this case, and after hearing both parties to the dispute, it appears to me the real question in controversy is the ascertainment of the boundary between the plaintiffs village of Libie and the defendants family of Ihitte.

Further he stated:

“From the pleadings the plans and the evidence of the parties, the real issue between the parties is:

  • i
    Whether the land in dispute is separated from Umunahu land on the northern boundary by “Ovuru” immediately adjoining the residential quarters of the plaintiffs, i.e. Libie people in Umunahu Uratta in which case the area verged pink in defendant’s plan, exhibit B and designated land in dispute also forms part of the defendant’s land, or
  • ii
    Whether the plaintiffs land extends over the northern boundary (where the defendant says there is an Ovuru which forms the boundary between plaintiffs and the defendant) immediately adjoining the residential quarters of the plaintiffs, in which case the area shown on exhibit A as the land in dispute which is clearly across the farm land forms part of the plaintiffs land and therefore belongs to the plaintiffs.”

He resolved the issues in favour of the plaintiffs and granted them the declaration and other relief they sought. On the defendant’s appeal to the Court of Appeal, Enugu Division, that Court, per Omosun, JCA, in his lead judgment with which Olatawura, JCA (as he then was) and Onu, JCA agreed, dismissed the appeal.

The appellant further appealed to the Supreme Court.

Issues

  • 1
    On what ground did the respondent base their root of title judging from...
    • Read More