The land dispute between the people of Ibusa and the people of Ogwashi-Ukwu both of Bendel State, which gave rise to this appeal, apparently began in 1962. It is therefore important as background to this appeal, to take a look at what happened at that time. In that year, both parties sued each other over the same land: and those suits – Nos B/44/62, B/46/62 and B/47/62 (hereinafter called the “1962 cases”), were subsequently consolidated for trial. In two of those suits, the Ogwashi-Ukwu people as plaintiffs claimed declaration of title damages for trespass and perpetual injunction over the same farmland which they called Odonkwo land. But at that time, the Ibusa people as defendants did not counter-claim for any declaration of title to the land in dispute. In both their pleadings and the evidence adduced at the trial of the 1962 cases, both parties relied heavily on their traditional histories. The trial Judge therefore at the conclusion of the trial disbelieved the traditional history of the Ogwashi-Ukwu people and said inter-alia that he was inclined to lean to the view that the grains of truth in the traditional history (of the Ogwashi-Ukwu people) appeared to have lost their lustre with the passage of time. (See page 118 lines 21-24 of Exhibit F). On the other hand, he believed the evidence led on the traditional history of the Ibusa people and said: “I must say that I am impressed by the traditional history (of the Ibusa people) which rings true”. (See page 121 lines 4-7 of Exhibit F).

In the result, the Ogwashi-Ukwu people lost their case both at the High Court and on appeal to the Supreme Court. However, since the Ibusa people did not counter-claim for a declaration of title to the land in dispute, none was declared in their favour. Consequently in 1966, the Ibusa people as plaintiffs took out a fresh action against the Ogwashi-Ukwu people as defendants on the same land. Their statement of claim pleaded the facts and findings of the previous proceedings, but did not specifically plead traditional history. The defendants pleaded a different traditional history from the one relied on in the 1962 case.

The trial Judge dismissed the plaintiffs’ claim for trespass but gave judgment for the declaration of title and injunction. The defendants appealed against this decision to the Court of Appeal who dismissed the appeal. An appeal to the Supreme Court was lodged.