This is an interlocutory appeal arising out of a suit which was commenced 32 years ago on 14-4-76. Remarkably, when on 17-4-96 the trial Court gave the ruling which is the foundation of this appeal, the trial of the suit to conclusion had been aborted a few times. The Plaintiffs, who brought the suit had been locked in a bitter dispute as to who of them should pursue the suit as representatives of their Umudike Family.
At the commencement of the suit, six persons initiated the suit as Plaintiffs for and on behalf of Umudike family of Uzoakwa Ihiala against 13 persons who were sued as the representatives of Umumeri family of Ihiala. The Plaintiffs claimed the ownership of a parcel of land known as "Okpuno Dike Ezeala". They claimed for declaration of title. N5.000.00 damages for trespass and injunction restraining the Defendants from committing further acts of trespass on the land.
The Defendants denied that the Plaintiffs were the owners of the land. They claimed to be the owners of the land.
Problems arose on 6/2/96 when four persons claiming to be members of the Plaintiffs' family brought an application praying to be admitted into the proceedings as representatives of the Umudike Family in substitution for the original 1st, 2nd. 3rd and 6th Plaintiffs who were said to have expressed an intention not to participate further in the proceedings as the representatives of the Plaintiffs' Umudike Family.
Paragraphs 2 to 4 of the affidavit sworn to by one of the Applicants are eye-opening and read thus:
-
"2
That I am one of the persons represented in the above suit by the named Plaintiffs - Respondents.
-
3
That Christopher Anuwu, Dennis Ohanehi, Joseph Okeyika and James Anozie, the 1st, 2nd. 3rd and 6th Plaintiffs-Respondents have now expressed their intention not to participate further in the prosecution of this suit.
-
4
That I and the other Applicants and the other members of Umudike Family of Uzoakwa, Ihiala including the 4th and 5th Plaintiffs-Respondents are determined to prosecute the above suit to its just determination.
-
5
That exhibited hereto and marked Exhibit 'A' is a certified true copy of the resolution of members of Umudike Family of Uzoakwa to pursue and prosecute the above suit to its final and just determination.
-
6
That I and the other Applicants were selected by members of Umudike Family of Uzoakwa to make this application to enable us join the 4th and 5th Plaintiffs-Respondents in prosecuting the above suit."
-
10
"That the Honourable Court take judicial notice of the 'Resolutions of Umudike family meeting at a General Assembly on September 10, 1994 already before this Court.
This Resolution mandates only the four (4) Plaintiffs:
-
(a)
Chief Christopher Anuwu
-
(b)
Chief Joseph Okeyika
-
(c)
Chief James AnozieMbonu
-
(d)
Mr. Dennis Ohanehi to continue to represent us in this Suit No.HN/12/76.
-
11
That by the above Resolution, the mandate given to Chief Godfrey Nsofor and Raphael Ejezie to continue to be part of the representatives of Umudike Village was WITHDRAWN. They, therefore, have no right to continue to purport to represent the Umudike family, let alone asking others to join them.
-
12
That by the above Resolution, the mandate given to Chief Godfrey Nsofor and Raphael Ejezie to continue to be part of the representatives of Umudike Village was WITHDRAWN. They, therefore, have no right to continue to purport to represent the Umudike family, let alone asking others to join them.
-
13
This was the background to the dispute which led to the present appeal.
The Applicants had tried by their application to replace four of the original six Plaintiffs. They wished to come into suit in their stead. They however sought to retain in the original 4th and 5th Plaintiffs. Four of the original six Plaintiffs resisted the attempt to have them substituted. Against this background, counsel addressed the trial Court. After hearing arguments from counsel, the trial Court on 17-4-96 in its ruling on the application concluded thus;
"In the midst of this confusion, what is the Court expected to do? Is it to grant an application filed to remove some of the Plaintiffs who were even served with the application; and an application filed by counsel whose brief the said Plaintiffs allege they had terminated earlier. I must say that I find myself unable to grant such an application. There are also so many irreconcilable conflicts in the affidavits that I do not think that even oral evidence wi11 cure the dilemma of the Plaintiffs. The truth of the matter is that the Plaintiffs in this suit are in disarray and it is impossible to move forward or even stand still in this case. hi the light of the foregoing, I make the following orders:
-
a
This motion for substitution dated 5/2/96 and filed on 6/2/76 is hereby refused.
-
b
This suit No. HN/12/76 is hereby struck out. If the Plaintiffs eventually reconcile, they can apply to relief this suit.
-
c
I make no order as to costs."
The tenor of the passage of the trial Court's ruling reproduced above reveals the exasperation of the trial Court with a problem unnecessarily created by the Plaintiffs. The 4th and 5th of the Plaintiffs brought an appeal against the ruling of the trial Court. They were identified in the Notice of appeal as Plaintiffs/Appellants. Their erstwhile Co-Plaintiffs were identified as Plaintiffs/Respondents whilst the Defendants were the Defendants/Respondents. The Court of Appeal, Enugu (hereinafter referred to as the Court below) heard the appeal. On 14/1/2002, the Court below in its judgment dismissed the appeal.
