Disable Preloader

CaseLaw

Dokubo V. Omoni (1999) CLR 8(c) (CA)

Brief

  • Findings of fact
  • Judgements of Native courts
  • Estoppel per rem judicatam
  • Grant & Settlement (Distinction between)
  • Trespass to land

Facts

The action itself was commenced Chief Williams Seleya Big Tom, Chief Ibibo Obu Dokubo and Chief Christopher Thompson, for themselves and as representing the Chiefs and people of Abalama Community on March 12, 1979, in the High Court of Rivers State, Degema Judicial Division, Claiming against Chief Jonathan Omoni and nine others for themselves and as representing the Chiefs and people of Tema Community jointly and severally for the following reliefs:-

  • i
    "A declaration of Plaintiffs' Right of Occupancy over the piece and parcel of land known as 'IGI-PIRI' and the IGA CREEK situate at Abalama.
  • ii
    A perpetual injunction restraining the defendants and their servants from committing any trespass on the said land and creek and claiming compensation due on the land and creek from Guffanti Nig. Limited, West-minister Dredging Company Limited, or from any other company or persons; or the Degema Local Government Council; and
  • iii
    N50,000.00 general damages for trespass committed thereon."

Pleadings were filed and exchanged. The Plaintiffs (herein Appellants) called three witnesses while the Defendants (herein Respondents) called six witnesses. In a reserved judgment delivered on October 12, 1983, the learned trial Judge (Fiberesima, J.) held that the Appellants were entitled to a declaration customary right of occupancy as claimed. The learned trial Judge in addition ordered the Respondents to refund to the Appellants some money collected by the Respondents in respect of the land from a company. He also made an order of perpetual injunction against the Respondents.

Being dissatisfied with the said decision the Respondents appealed to the Court of Appeal (hereinafter in the rest of this appeal where the context so admits, referred to as the court below). The court below upheld the Respondents' appeal and in consequence ordered a dismissal of the Appellants' claims with costs.

Being dissatisfied with the decision of the Court of Appeal, the appellants appealed to the Supreme Court.

Issues

  • a
    Whether the lower court was right when it held that the learned trial...
  • Read More